NEGATIVE 

NO.  91-80395 


MICROFILMED  1 99 1 
COLUMBIA  L^IVERSITY  LIBRARIES/NEW  YORK 


ii 


as  part  of  the 
Foundations  of  Western  Civilization  Preservation  Project" 


Funded  by  the 
NATIONAL  ENDOWMENT  FOR  THE  HUMANITIES 


Reproductions  may  not  be  made  without  permission  from 

Columbia  University  Library 


coF\-  RIGH  [■  STATEMENT 

The  copyright  law  of  the  United  States  -.-  Title  17,  United 
States  Code  --  concerns  the  making  of  photocopies  or  other 
reproductions  of  copyrighted  material... 

Columbia  University  Library  reserves  the  right  to  refuse  to 
accept  a  copy  order  if,  in  its  judgement,  fulfillment  of  the  order 
would  involve  violation  of  the  copyright  law. 


AUTHOR: 


DAU,  WILLIAM 
HENRY  T. 


TITLE: 


THE  LOGICAL  AND 
HISTORICAL... 


PLACE: 


ST.  LOUIS 


DA  TE : 


1909 


. IJ M f 5 ! A  U N I V n RS; IT Y  UBK A 
PRESERVATION  DEPARTMENT 


>   f  !     •   ■• 


Master  Negative  # 


BIBLIOGRAPHIC  MICROFORM  TARGET 


Original  Material  as  Filmed  -  Existing  Bibliographic  Record 


938.11 
D26 


Dau,  William  Herman  Theodore,  18G4- 

The  loj^ical  and  historical  inaccuracies  of  the  ITon.  Bourke 
Cockran  m  his  review  of  the  Lutheran  letter  of  protes  to 
President  Roosevelt.  By  Professor  W.  H.  T.  Dau.  St  rlis! 
Mo.,Concordiapublishinghouse,  19e&.  1909.      2d  ed. 

40  p.    £3- 

48  p. 


Restrictions  on  Use: 


U.  Os^'ao"^'""""  '"'''''''•  ''^^^^-  -2.-  Roosevelt,  Ti.eodore,  pres. 
Library  of  Congress  )     BV631.D3  1*— 18767 

in43bl) 


TECHNICAL  MICROFORM  DATA 

FILM     SIZE: "3S__ti-^^_  REDUCTION     RATIO:  / [>C 

IMAGE  PLACEMENT:    lA    %^  IB     IIB  ~~ 

DATE     FILMED: l:^j3-_^fj_ INITIALS__^f^^ 

nLMEDBY:    RESEARCH  PUBLICATIONS.  INC  WOODBRIDGE.  CT 


I  IT 


Association  for  Information  and  Image  Management 

1 1 00  Wayne  Avenue.  Suite  1 1 00 
Silver  Spring,  Maryland  20910 

301/587-8202 


Centimeter 


iiii 


iiiiliiiiliiiiliiiiliiiiliiiiliiiiliiiiliiiiliiiiliiiiliiiiliiiiliiiiliiiil 


riT 


Inches 


TTT 


6         7        8 

iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiilii 


[TTTT 


1.0 


I.I 


1.25 


9 

III  li 


T 


10 


lllillll 


TTT 


n       12       13       14 

llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll 


1^ 

2.8 

2.5 

1^ 

y^ 

||3:2 

2.2 

|63 

3.6 

ilil 

40 

2.0 

L& 

L.     ^ 

■uixu 

1.8 

1.4 

1.6 

15    mm 


MfiNUFflCTURED   TO   RUM   STONDFIRDS 
BY   APPLIED  IMRGE.    INC. 


tfh^m^' 


.,/.  *'- 


The 


Logical  and  Historical  Inaccuracies  of 

The  Hon.  Bourke  Cockran 

In  His  Review  of  the  Lutheran  Letter 
of  Protest  to  President  Roosevelt. 


By  Prof.  W.  H.  T.  Dau. 


SECOND   EDITION. 


Concordia  Publishing  House,— St.  Lorn.  Mo,— 1909. 


k 


u 

•3,- 


i# 


•   Vf 


938JI 


32G 


(Kx^Utntbla  |(tnxun*0ttt| 
ill  th^  Citxr  af  |leiu  ||avk 

J^ibiary 


GJVEN    BY 


Ty.  ES-ld  .e.nt.  s o  -T-T".  r 


t 


JuT- 


« 


The  Logical  and  Historical 

Inaccuracies 


of 


SFijf  If nn.  Uourk?  Cotkran 


in 


His  Review  of  the  Lutheran  Letter  of  Protest 

to  President  Roosevelt* 


lU 


By  Professor  fV.  H.  T.  Dau. 


SECOND  EDITION. 


St.  Louis,  Mo. 

CONCORDIA   PUBLISHING  HOUSE. 

1909. 


I 


w 


^B^ 


Prefatory  Notice. 


The  present  print  of  this  brochure  contains  two  additions: 
upon  request  the  entire  letter  of  the  New  York  pastors  has  been 
added  on  page  6.  The  advisability  of  adding  Chapter  14  was 
suggested  to  the  author  in  view  of  the  action  of  Mr.  Cockran  as 
noted  in  loco. 

St.  Louis,  Mo.,  January  25,  1909. 


m 


TO  HIS  BRETHREN, 

"THE  NEW  YORK  C1TY|MEMBERS  OF  THE  SYNODICAL  COPERENCE  OF  THE 

EVANGELICAL  LUTHERAN  CHURCH," 

WHO   SPOKE  A  WORD  IN   SEASON. 

THIS  BROCHURE  IS  INSCRIBED 


Bt 


THE  AUTHOR, 


■0 


0) 


a^: 


434310 


CONTENTS. 


PAGE 

Introductory 5 

1.  The  Facts  in  the  Case 7 

2.  Patriotic  Catholicism    11 

3.  The  Catholic  Church  the  Mother  of  Democracies 14 

4.  The  Primitive  Roman  Catholic  Church  ? 18 

5.  Boniface  VIII  and  the  Bull  Unam  Sanctam 21 

6.  Edward  the  Confessor  and  Magna  Charta 24 

7.  The  Keeper  of  the  King's  Conscience 26 

8.  Rome  and  the  Rise  of  Constitutional  Government 28 

9.  Mr.  Cockran's  Generous  Promise 31 

10.  The  Catholic  Marriage  Laws 33 

11.  The  Catholic  Church  and  the  Convict 35 

12.  Mr.  Cockran  and  the  "Angelus"  Bishop 36 

13.  The  Eloquent  Silence  of  Mr.  Cockran 38 

14.  Mr.  Cockran's  Rejoinder 45 


INTRODUCTORY. 


On  November  the  third,  1908,  the  citizens  of  the  United  States 
of  America  elected  Mr.  William  Taft  of  Ohio  President.  Prior 
to  his  election  some  citizens  had  entertained  scruples  whether,  as 
Christians,  they  could  conscientiously  give  their  votes  to  Mr.  Taft, 
because  it  was  known  that  Mr.  Taft  belonged  to  a  religious  society 
which  denies  the  divinity  of  Jesus  Christ.  During  the  political 
campaign  which  preceded  Mr.  Taft^s  election,  certain  persons  had 
openly  antagonized  his  election.  This  fact  was  brought  to  the 
notice  of  the  President  of  thQ  United  States^  and  in  a  letter  ad- 
dressed to  a*certain  Mr.  J.  C.  Martin  the  President  expressed  his 
disapproval  of  all  efforts  to  make  the  religious  views  of  a  candidate 
for  a  state  office  the  test  of  his  eligibility.  The  President  con- 
tended that  such  efforts  were  contrary  to  the  spirit  and  letter  of 
the  Constitution  of  the  North  American  Kepublic.  Over  and  above 
this,  the  President  emphasized  his  disapproval  by  declaring  the 
refusal  to  vote  for  a  candidate  because  of  the  candidate's  religious 
views  "unwarranted  bigotry." 

The  Presidents  letter  to  Mr.  Martin  had  been  in  existence 
some  time  prior  to  the  time  of  its  publication,  but  this  fact  was 
not  generally  known.  On  November  the  ninth  the  letter  was  given 
to  the  press  of  the  country,  and  appeared  in  the  leading  daily  papers. 
A  Pastoral  Conference  of  Lutheran  clergymen  in  the  city  of 
New  York  happened  to  be  in  session  on  the  day  following.  Atten- 
tion having  been  drawn  to  the  Presidents  letter,  the  members  of 
the  Conference  discovered  that  they  were  at  variance  with  the 
President,  not  as  regards  the  general  principle  which  he  had  ex- 
pressed, but  as  regards  a  particular  application  of  the  principle. 
They  instructed  two  of  their  members  to  communicate  to  the 
President  in  a  respectful  manner  the  point  on  which  they  felt  it 
necessary  to  dissent  from  his  views,  and  to  submit  the  grounds 
and  evidence  for  their  dissent.  At  the  same  time  they  requested 
the  President  to  limit  or  qualify  the  charge  of  bigotry,  so  as  to 
render  it  inapplicable  to  the  members  of  the  Conference.  In  case, 
however,  the  President  considered  the  members  of  the  Conference 
to  be  in  error,  they  asked  to  be  enlightened.  The  stricture  of  the 
Lutheran  pastors  was  forwarded  to  the  President  as  an  open  letter 


«  > 


ll    ^ 


! 


on  November  the  sixteenth.  It  was  published  complete  in  the 
New  York  Times  and  portions  of  the  letter  appeared  in  many  of 
the  dailies  in  the  larger  cities  of  the  country. 

The  letter  is  as  follows :  — 
Hon.  Theodore  Roosevelt, 

White  House,  Washington,  D.  C. 

Sir:— Convinced  of  your  deep  sincerity,  and  in  full  agreement  with 
you  as  to  the  fundamental  principle  of  the  separation  of  Church  and  State 
as  enunciated  in  your  letter  to  Mr.  J.  C.  Martin,  members  and  pastors  of 
our  Church,  and  other  Churches  as  well,  have  been  amazed  to  see  the  in- 
discriminate and  self-contradictory  application  you  make  of  that  principle 
Itself,  and  this  in  the  stricture  made  by  you  on  those  who  might  refuse 
to  vote  for  a  Roman  Catholic  for  the  highest  office  in  the  gift  of  our 
people. 

Of  course  it  is  subversive  of  the  basic  principle  of  a  real  separation 
of  Church  and  State  to  permit  the  religious  belief  or  non-belief  of  any 
candidate  for  public  office  to  determine  the  casting  of  one's  vote  for  or 
against  such  candidate,,  except  when  that  very  religious  belief  or  non- 
belief  antagonizes  this  principle  of  complete  separation  of  Church  and 
State  and  all  those  rights  and  liberties  which  are  included  therein  and 
safeguarded  thereby.  We  agree  with  you,  therefore,  that  those  citizens 
are  to  be  severely  criticised  who  vote  against  a  man  merely  because  he  is 
a  Unitarian,  a  Jew,  a  Methodist,  or  any  other  religionist. 

But  were  you  not  aware  of  the  fact  that  the  Roman  Catholic  Church 
has  again  and  again,  for  centuries  back  and  down  to  modern  times,  through 
Its  official  head  and  other  authorities,  denounced  as  wholly  wrong  and  as 
things  to  be  tolerated  only  so  long*  as  they  cannot  be  changed  the  complete 
separation  of  Church  and  State,  full  religious  liberty,  freedom  of  con- 
science, of  speech,  and  of  the  press,  and  that,  moreover,  it  proclaims  its 
teachings  and  principles  to  be  unchangeable,  and  boasts  of  being  "semper 
idem"  ?  ^  ^ 

Lest  we  be  accused  of  either  misapprehension  or  misrepresentation 
permit  us  to  quote  some  of  the  pertinent  official  declarations  of  the  authori- 
ties of  the  Roman  Catholic  Church. 

Pope  Boniface  VIII,  in  his  famous  Bull  Unam  Sanctam,  declared: 

In  this  Church  and  in  its  power  are  two  swords  —  to-wit,  a  soir- 

rofnef''  T^nfh  "^r'^l'  ^''t^^'^'^.t  ^T^  t^^ght  by  the  words  of  the 
Gospel.     Both,  therefore,  the  spiritual  and  the  material  swords,  are 

Churl  ^?r^  ""^  *^l  ^^.^'tl  ^K  ^^^*""  '""^^^  *«  be  used  for  the 
Church,  the  former  by  the  Church,  the  one  by  the  priest,  the  other 

by  the  hands  of  kings  and  soldiers,  but  by  the  will  and  sufferance 
of  the  priest  It  is  fitting,  moreover,  that  one  sword  should  be 
under  the  other,  and  the  temporal  authority  subject  to  the  spir- 
itua  power.  We  moreover  proclaim,  declare,  afid  pronounce  that  it 
is  altogether  necessary  for  salvation  for  every  human  being  to  be 
subject  to  the  Roman  Pontiff.  &         ^ 


Pius  IX,  in  his  Syllabus  of  1864,  condemns  as  an  error  the  proposi- 
tion that  "the  Church  must  be  separated  from  the  State,  and  the  State 
from  the  Church." 

Leo  XIII,  in  his  Encyclical  On  the  Christian  Constitution  of  States^ 
November  1,  1885,  indorses  this  declaration  of  Pius  IX,  and  in  his  En- 
cyclical On  Human  Liberty,  June  20,  1888,  condemns  what  he  terms  "the 
fatal  theory  of  the  right  of  separation  between  Church  and  State." 

In  the  same  encyclical  Leo  declares: 

From  what  has  been  said  it  follows  that  it  is  quite  unlawful 
to  demand,  to  defend,  or  to  grant  unconditional  freedom  of  thought, 
of  speech,  of  writing,  or  of  worship,  as  if  these  were  so  many  rights 
given  by  nature  to  man. 

Pius  IX,  in  his  Syllabus  of  December  8,  1864,  on  The  State,  declares 
that  it  has  not  the  right  of  establishing  a  national  Church  separate  from 
the  Pope  nor^the  right  to  the  entire  direction  of  public  schools. 

Have  these  declarations  ever  been  revoked  by  the  Roman  Catholic 
Church?  If  so,  we  have  gained  no  knowledge  thereof.  All  that  we  have 
read  by  Roman  Catholic  writers  was  merely  an  attempt  either  to  justify 
these  declarations  or  to  take  the  edge  off  of  them  in  order  to  meet  attacks 
from  those  who  maintain  that  the  Romanist,  if  he  be  a  loyal  adherent  of 
his  Church,  its  official  teachings  and  principles,  is  in  irreconcilable  conflict 
with  the  principles  set  forth  in  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States. 
Even  Cardinal  Gibbons,  in  his  book  The  Faith  of  Our  Fathers,  makes  these 
significant  statements,  the  best  he  has  to  offer  in  vindication  of  his  Church 
against  the  charge  that  it  is  Opposed  to  civil  and  religious  liberty: 

A  man  enjoys  religious  liberty  when  he  possesses  the  free  right 
of  worshiping  God  according  to  the  dictates  of  a  right  conscience 
and  of  practicing  the  form  of  religion  most  in  accordance  with  his 
duties  to  God.    (49th  edition,  1897,  p.  264.) 

The  Church  is  indeed  intolerant  in  this  sense  that  she  must 
never  confound  truth  with  errors;  nor  can  she  ever  admit  that 
a  man  is  conscientiously  free  to  reject  the  truth  when  its  claims 
are  convincingly  brought  home  to  his  mind.  Many  Protestants 
seem  to  be  very  much  disturbed  by  some  such  argument  as  this: 
Catholics  are  very  ready  now  to  proclaim  freedom  of  conscience  be- 
cause they  are  in  the  minority.  When  they  once  succeed  in  getting 
the  upper  hand  in  numbers  and  power,  they  will  destroy  this  free- 
dom because  their  faith  teaches  them  to  tolerate  no  doctrine  other 
than  the  Catholic.  It  is,  therefore,  a  matter  of  absolute  necessity 
for  us  that  they  should  never  be  allowed  to  get  this  advantage. 

Now,  in  all  this  there  is  a  great  mistake,  which  comes  from 
not  knowing  the  Catholic  doctrine  in  its  fullness.  I  shall  not  lay 
it  down  myself  lest  it  seem  to  have  been  gotten  up  for  the  occasion. 
I  shall  quote  the  great  theologian  Becanus,  who  taught  the  doctrine 
of  the  schools  of  Catholic  theology  at  the  time  when  the  struggle 
was  strongest  between  Catholicity  and  Protestantism.  He  says  that 
religious  liberty  may  be  tolerated  by  a  ruler  when  it  would  do  more 
harm  to  the  State  or  to  the  community  to  repress  it.  The  ruler 
may  even  enter  into  a  contract  in  order  to  secure  to  his  subjects 
this  freedom  in  religious  matters,  and  when  once  a  contract  is  made, 
it  must  be  observed  absolutely  in  every  point,  just  as  every  other 
lawful  and  honest  contract,    (p.  268.) 


\ 


i! 


Ij  li 

li 


it 


II 


8     

What  else  are  these  obviously  mildest  declarations  of  Romanists  but 
a  confirmation  of  the  charge  that  the  Roman  Catholic  Church  does  not 
stand  for  full  and  perfect  religious  liberty,  as  understood  by  all  Americans 
and  defined  in  our  Federal  Constitution,  that  every  man  shall  be  free  not 
only  to  worship  God  according  to  the  dictates  of  a  "right  conscience"  and 
to  practice  a  "religion  most  in  accordance  with  his  duties  to  God,"  but 
according  to  his  conscience  and  his  conception  of  his  duties  to  God,  right 
or  wrong,  so  long  as  he  is  not  thereby  led  to  endanger  the  equal  rights 
and  liberties  of  his  neighbor,  or  to  interfere  with  the  free  exercise  of  the 
Government's  power  in  the  equal  protection  of  all  citizens? 

Is  there  any  comment  necessary  on  the  Cardinal's  quotation  from 
Becanus  to  show  that  it  in  nowise  commits  the  Roman  Catholic  Church 
to  the  principle  of  religious  liberty,  but  most  clearly  decries  that  prin- 
ciple as  an  evil  to  be  tolerated  only  by  reason  of  necessity,  "when  it  would 
do  more  harm  to  the  State  or  to  the  community  to  repress  it?" 

Are  we  not,  then,  compelled  to  maintain  that  a  loyal  Roman  Catholic 
who  fully  understands  the  allegiance  required  of  him  by  the  Pope  can 
never  sincerely  subscribe  to  the  Federal  Constitution,  nor,  if  he  does  sub- 
scribe to  it,  never  can  be  expected  to  abide  by  it,  enforce  and  defend  it? 
Papacy  and  Vaticanism  cannot  be  separated  from  the  Roman  Catholic 
religion.  If  anyone  should  entertain  an  idea  that  this  were  possible,  let 
him  read  Cardinal  Gibbons's  afore-quoted  book. 

How,  then,  could  we,  as  firm  believers  in  the  principle  of  complete 
separation  of  Church  and  State,  and  the  liberties  based  thereon  and  safe- 
guarded thereby,  conscientiously  and  consistently  help  to  elect  to  the  Presi- 
dency a  member  of  the  Roman  Catholic  Church,  so  long  as  that  Church 
does  not  officially,  through  its  Pontiff  or  Churcli  Council,  revoke  its  dia- 
metrically opposed  declarations?  '    • 

Are  the  2,000,000  and  more  Lutherans  of  this  country,  not  to  speak 
of  the  millions  of  other  Protestants,  who  take  this  position  for  the  reasons 
stated,  to  be  accused  of  bigotry  or  fanaticism  because  of  such,  their  stand, 
aye,  be  denounced  as  being  disloyal  American  citizens?  We  protest  that 
it  is  neither  personal  feeling  nor  religious  antagonism  which  determines 
our  attitude  in  this  matter,  but  solely  our  disagreement  with  the  Roman 
Catholic  Church  on  this  basic  political  principle,  a  disagreement  growing 
out  of  the  rejection  and  denunciation  by  the  Roman  Catholic  Church  of 
that  very  principle  which  you  admonish  all  faithfully  to  uphold  not  only 
in  theory  but  in  practice. 

We  do  not  wish  to  be  understood  as  though  we  accuse  the  bulk  of  the 
Roman  Catholics  of  being  disloyal  American  citizens.  We  sincerely  believe 
a  great  many  do  not  fully  realize  that  the  position  the  hierarchy  of  their 
Church  maintains  with  reference  to  the  principle  in  question,  especially 
in  view  of  the  outgivings  of  their  teachers  in  this  country,  and  that  if  it 
came  to  an  issue  compelling  a  decision  cither  for  the  Constitution  or  the 
Papal  hierarchy,  they  would  decide  in  favor  of  the  ftrmer,  upholding  the 
Constitution  of  the  United  States.  Yet,  in  determining  our  attitude  in 
this  matter,  especially  when  it  comes  to  electing  a  man  to  the  highest 


public  office,  we  must  be  guided  by  the  official  teachings  of  the  recognized 
authorities  of  the  Roman  Catholic  Church. 

We  have  considered  it  to  be  our  duty  not  to  keep  silence  in  this  matter 
because,  in  our  judgment,  that  would  have  been  an  act  of  cowardice,  nor 
do  we  wish  to  do  anyone  an  injustice,  nor  in  any  manner  traduce  any  man 
or  body  of  men.  If,  therefore,  in  aught  we  have  said  we  are  laboring  under 
error,  we  shall  be  pleased  to  have  you  enlighten  us  and  with  us  the  millions 
who  occupy  the  same  position,  and  shall  be  sincerely  grateful  to  you  for 
such  enlightenment.  But  if  we  are  right  in  our  contention  and  position, 
we  ask  you  to  show  your  unquestioned  sincerity  and  courage  by  an  ac- 
knowledgment ol  the  correctness  of  our  contention  and  the  attitude  based 

thereon. 

We  are. 

Very  Respectfully, 

William  Schoenfeld, 
Martin  Walker, 

for  the  New  York  Pastoral  Conference  of  the  Synodical 
Conference  of  the  Lutheran  Church. 

Before  the  President  could  have  conveniently  replied  to  the 
letter,  Mr.  Bourke  Cockran  of  New  York  made  the  letter  the  sub- 
ject of  an  extended  review.  In  an  address,  delivered  on  Wednes- 
day evening,  November  the  eighteenth,  before  the  delegates  to  the 
First  American  Catholic  Missionary  Congress,  then  in  session  at 
Chicago,  111.,  and  before  a  great  conflux  of  spectators,  Mr.  Cockran 
endeavored,  not  only  to  show  the  groundlessness  of  the  claim  of 
the  New  York  pastors,  and  of  an  identical  claim  which  had  been 
advanced  by  a  conference  of  Baptist  clergymen  in  Philadelphia, 
but  he  also  held  the  claim  up  to  ridicule.  Mr.  Cockran  spoke  before 
a  very  large  and  appreciative  audience.  The  occasion  being  the 
closing  session  of  the  Missionary  Congress,  more  persons  sought 
admission  to  the  armory  in  which  the  Congress  sat  than  could  be 
accommodated.  Even  many  who  had  secured  tickets  of  admission 
had  to  be  turned  away.  A  reporter  estimated  their  number  at 
several  thousands.  So  dense  a  mob  formed  around  the  entrance 
that  a  priest  was  overcome  and  had  to  be  carried  away,  and  it  was 
found  necessary  at  length  to  send  in  a  riot  call  to  the  police  of 
Chicago  to  keep  the  people  from  forcing  the  doors.  Mr.  Cockran 
had  the  good  will  and  the  enthusiastic  approbation  of  his  hearers 
from  beginning  to  end.  Frequent  applause  and  volleys  of  cheers 
punctuated  his  remarks. 


I! 


f      III 


1^1 


11         1 


10     

His  address  was  published  first  by  the  Michigan  Catholic 
during  the  last  week  in  November,  and  was  from  that  paper  trans- 
ferred to  the  columns  of  The  New  World,  published  at  Chicago, 
on  December  the  fifth.  The  New  World  claims  to  be  "the  best 
medium  by  which  to  reach  the  4,000,000  Catholics  of  the  great 
Middle  West/'  As  to  the  address  of  Mr.  Cockran,  this  paper  states 
that  it  has  found  it  apparently  impossible  to  obtain  an  official  copy 
of  the  address,  and  that  it  offers  the  text  of  the  address  as  pub- 
lished in  the  Michigan  journal  as  "presumably  accurate."  It  is 
not  known  that  Mr.  Cockran  has  protested  against  the  text  in 
which  his  address  has  been  submitted  to  four  millions,  and  more, 
of  his  coreligionists  and  to  the  public  in  general. 

Upon  the  criticism  to  which  Mr.  Cockran  subjected  the  letter 
of  the  Lutheran  pastors  of  New  York,  and,  in  particular,  upon 
the  manner  in  which  he  exhibited  and  met  the  arguments  in  the 
letter,  the  following  remarks  are  submitted. 


I<t 


11 


I. 

The  Facts  in  the  Case. 

Mr.  Cockran  began  by  saying  that,  like  all  Catholic  celebra- 
tions, the  Missionary  Congress  had  both  a  religious  and  a  civic 
aspect,  and  that  owing  to  the  New  York  letter  of  protest  to  Presi- 
dent Eoosevelt  the  civic  aspect  had  assumed  unusual  significance. 
He  characterized  the  letter  as  follows : 

It  takes  the  President  severely  to  task  for  having,  in  a  letter 
published  a  week  earlier,  declared  that  it  was  against  the  basic  theory 
of  separation  between  Church  and  State  for  any  man  to  allow  the 
exercise  of  his  suffrage  to  be  affected  by  the  religious  belief  of  any 
candidate.         * 

The  Lutheran  pastors  had  said  to  President  Roosevelt: 

Sir:  —  Convinced  of  your  deep  sincerity,  and  in  full  agreement 
with  you  as  to  the  fundamental  principle  of  the  separation  of  Church 
and  State,  as  enunciated  in  your  letter  to  Mr.  J.  C.  Martin,  members 
and  pastors  of  our  church,  and  other  churches  as  well,  have  been 
amazed  to  see  the  indiscriminate  and  self-contradictory  application 
you  make  of  that  principle  itself,  and  this  in  the  stricture  made  by 
you  on  those  who  might  refuse  to  vote  for  a  Roman  Catholic  for  the 
highest  office  in  the  gift  of  our  people. 

Of  course,  it  is  subversive  of  the  hasic  principle  of  a  real  separa- 
tion of  Church  and  State  to  permit  the  religious  belief  or  non-belief 
of  any  candidate  for  public  office  to  determine  the  casting  of  one's 
vote  for  or  against  such  candidate,  except  when  that  very  religious 
belief  or  non-belief  antagonizes  this  principle  of  complete  separation 
of  Church  and  State  and  all  those  rights  and  liberties  which  are 
included  therein  and  safeguarded  thereby.  We  agree  with  you,  there^ 
fore,  that  those  citizens  are  to  be  severely  criticised  who  vote  against 
a  man  merely  because  he  is  a  Unitarian,  a  Jew,  a  Methodist,  or  any 

OTHER    RELIGIONIST. 


ili 


There  is  a  plain  discrepancy  between  Mr.  Cockran's  statement 
and  that  of  the  Lutheran  pastors  as  regards  the  point  in  con- 
troversy. The  Lutheran  letter  acknowledges  a  very  material  and 
extensive  unity  of  sentiment  with  the  President,  yea,  it  even 
emphasizes  that  unity.  This  unity  of  sentiment  between  the  Presi- 
dent and  the  Lutheran  pastors  was  indeed  exhibited  by  Mr.  Cockran 
to  his  audience,  after  the  first  wave  of  applause  had  subsided,  and 
the  mischief  indicated  had  been  done.  It  was  exhibited  in  the 
following  fashion: 


Ill 


12     

The  gentlemen  undertook  to  say  that  "this  political  truth  was 
entirely  applicable'*  —  I  quote  their  own  language  —  "to  a  Unitarian, 
a  Methodist,  a  Jew,  or  any  other  religionist,  but  that  it  could  not 
fairly  be  applied  to  a  Roman  Catholic." 

To  the  end  of  guiding  his  audience  to  a  just  estimate  of  the 
Lutheran  letter,  we  hold  that  Mr.  Cockran  was  under  the  common 
obligation  which  conscience  and  fairmindedness  lay  upon  any  per- 
son that  sets  out  to  create  and  to -mold  public  opinion,  to  present 
the  exact  species  facti,  the  facts  in  the  case.  This  would  have  re- 
quired, 1)  that  the  audience  be  tald  that  the  Lutheran  pastors  as- 
sume no  dijfference  between  Catholics,  viewed  as  religionists,  and 
any  other  religionists.  They  stand  for  the  principle :  Equal  rights 
to  all.  Their  contention  arises  from  the  fact  that  Catholics  cannot 
be  viewed  simply  as  religionists,  but  must  be  viewed  as  something 
else  besides,  namely,  as  a  faction  seeking  after  political  power. 
There  can  be  little  doubt,  we  believe,  but  that  the  President  in  his 
letter  to  Mr.  Martin  magnanimously  has  viewed  Catholics  merely 
as  religionists  on  a  level  with  other  religionists,  and  that  he  desires 
his  fellow-citizens  likewise  to  thus  view  them.  The  Lutheran 
letter  fully  meets  and  perfectly  coincides  with  the  President  on 
this  point.  As  religionists  the  Catholics  have  not  been  singled  out 
for  attack  by  the  Lutheran  pastors. 

2.  The  mention  of  the  Catholic  name  in  this  discussion  did 
not  originate  with  the  Lutheran  pastors.  Just  how  much  cause  the 
President  had  in  his  letter  to  Mr.  Martin  to  refer  especially  to  th6 
possibility  of  a  Catholic  being  elected  to  the  presidency,  we  know- 
not,  and  the  question  is  immaterial.  But  it  is  necessary  that  stress 
be  laid  on  this  fact  that  it  was  the  President,  not  the  Lutheran 
pastors,  who  injected  the  reference  to  Catholicism  into  the  present 
discussion.  Had  this  not  been  done,  the  ^NTew  York  pastors  who  met 
in  conference  on  November  the  tenth  would  in  all  likelihood  have 
failed  to  notice  the  letter. 

These  facts  are  mentioned  not  by  way  of  apology,  but  in  order 
to  show  that  Mr.  Cockran's  audience  was,  from  the  outset,  placed 
in  a  most  unfavorable  position  for  arriving  at  a  proper  and  equi- 
table judgment  of  the  action  of  the  Lutheran  pastors  and  of  the 
intended  scope  of  that  action.  Speaking,  as  he  did,  to  an  audience 
composed  chiefly,  if  not  exclusively,  of  Catholics,  Mr.  Cockran 
should  have  been  more  than  usually  careful  to  say  nothing  that 
was  of  a  character  to  arouse  ill-will  or  to  inflame  passion.     The 


13 


Lutheran  letter  had  touched  Catholic  sensibilities.     That  was  un- 
avoidable, though  the  intention  of  the  letter  was  not  to  hurt  and 
to  insult  persons,  but  to  prove  the  correctness  of  a  position.    True 
manliness  in  a  person  requires  that  when  an  unpleasant  fact  is 
presented  to  him  and  he  is  identified  with  that  fact,  he  face  it 
like  a  man.     Mr.  Cockran's  was  a  great  mission :    if  he  had  led 
his  audience  to  reflect  calmly  on  the  charge  raised  in  the  Lutheran 
letter,  he  w^ould  have  benefited  himself  and  those  who  heard  him. 
He  chose,  however,  to  assume  the  worst  motives  in  the  authors  of 
the  letter.     After  the  disingenuous  characterization  which  he  had 
given  of  the  New  York  letter,  he  proceeded  to  call  it  a  "misrepre- 
sentation;"  he  placed  the  New  York  pastors  in  a  class  with  men 
who   "invent  the   ground   of   their   criticism,"   and   the   audience 
applauded   this   remark;    lastly,   he   called   the   criticism   of   the 
Lutheran  pastors  "the  offspring  of  bigotry."     Mr.  Cockran  is  en- 
titled to  his  opinion.    In  a  country  where  free  speech  is  a  universal 
privilege  he  is  also  entitled  to  express  his  opinion.     But  it  has 
always  been  held  that  opinions,  if  they  are  worth  anything,  are 
the  product  of  sound  thinking.     Their  utterance  finds  a  proper 
place  at  the  close,  not  at  the  head,  of  an  argument.    Mr.  Cockran 
put  the  cart  before  the  horse.     He  told  his  hearers,  first,  that  the 
Lutherans  were  bigots,  and  then  exhibited  them  as  such  by  con- 
fronting the  claim  set  forth  in  the  Lutheran  letter  with  counter- 
claims which  he  advanced.     The  logical  order  would  have  been  to 
show  that  the  Lutheran  claim  was  baseless;    and  after  this  fact 
had  been  established,  the  reviewer  was  justified  in  looking  for  the 
cause  which  had  prompted  the  setting  up  of  the  claim.     And  if, 
out   of   several   causes   which   might   have   suggested   themselves, 
bigotry  had  seemed  the  only  one  which  would  properly  explain 
the  action  of  the  New  York  pastors,  the  speaker  might  have  stated 
that  as  his  conclusion.     He  has  made  his  conclusion  his  major 
premise.     His  aim  was  to  establish  the  bigotry  of  his  Lutheran 
critics  by  proving  the  untenableness  of  their  position,  not  to  refute 
their   arguments,   and,    as   a   consequence,   make   them   pass   for 
bigoted  zealots. 

This  logical  inaccuracy,  however,  turns  out  to  be  more  than 
a  fault  in  reasoning.  Not  only  does  it  shift  the  argument  from 
matters  to  men,  not  only  does  it  essay  to  break  down  the  merit 
of  a  claim  by  assailing  the  character  of  the  authors  of  the  claim, 
but  it  vitiates  the  entire  argument  by  making  it  emotional  rather 


\w 


I 


tll<l 


taiideniig 
)«H'u!]ar  line 


14     

than  intellectual.  The  reviewer  created  a  certain  state  of  feeling, 
a  certain  animus,  in  his  audience  before  he  invited  tlie  audience 
to  reflect  and  to  consider  his  facts.  Xaturally,  the  animus  wliich 
he  created  m  others  must  have  existed  iii  his  own  nimd  before  it 

was  transferred  t«)  other  iiiinds.  Or  if  it  existed  in  otiiers  Ijid'ore 
he  began  to  address  thcii!.  My.  ("ockraii  riiade  usp  of  it  bv  |)and 
to  it  an<l  thii^  making  bis  heari'r>  receplivt'  for  hi^ 
of  argument,  it  is  very  oa^y  to  prove  to  uuni  a  ponit  which  ibcv 
are  eager  to  see  pro\-ed.  But  it  is  a  dangerous  procedure.  The 
tiiuusands  who  bear<b  and  the  millions  wlio  have  since  read, 
Mr.  Cochran's  address  have  imbibed  the  notion  that  a  number  of 
their  countrymen  and  fellow-citizens  are  bent  upon  defaming  them. 
This  impression  is  sunk  deep  into  the  minds  especially  of  those 
who  came  under  the  spell  of  Mr.  Cochran's  oratorv.  If  anv  es- 
caped  the  impression,  it  were  a  sheer  miracle. 

We  merely  chronicle  these  matters  as  facts,  and  raise  no 
maudlin  complaint  about  them.  The  report  of  impending  trouble 
has  been  bruited  in  our  country.  We  shall  quietly -observe  coming 
events.  W^e  expect  no  pleasant  reaping  from  such  bitter  sowing 
as  was  done  by  Mr.  Cockran.  The  stigma  of  bigotry  which  he  has 
sought  to  fasten  upon  Lutherans,  and  others,  and  for  which  he 
may  claim  the  dignity  and  authority  which  an  alliance  with  the 
President  of  the  United  States  naturally  would  bring  to  his  effort, 
—  though  such  an  alliance  is  by  no  means  patent,  —  may  ulti- 
mately recoil  upon  his  own  head.  If  trouble  comes,  we  shall  know 
whom,  amongst  others,  we  may  hold  justly  responsible  as  the 
author  and  fomenter  of  the  trouble.  The  Lutheran  pastors  have 
declared : 

We  protest  that  it  is  neither  personal  feeling  nor  rehgious 
antagonism  which  determines  our  attitude  in  this  matter,  but  solely 
our  disagreement  with  the  Eoman  Catholic  Church  on  this  basic 
political  principle. 

We  do  not  wish  to  be  understood  as  though  we  mean  to  accuse 
the  bulk  of  the  Roman  Catholics  of  being  disloyal  American  citizens. 
We  sincerely  believe  a  great  many  do  not  fully  realize  the  position 
the  hierarchy  of  their  church  maintains  with  reference  to  the  prin- 
ciple in  question. 

We  have  considered  it  to  be  our  duty  not  to  keep  silence  in  this 
matter  because,  in  our  judgment,  that  would  have  been  an  act  of 
cowardice,  nor  do  we  wish  to  do  any  one  an  injustice,  nor  in  any 
manner  traduce  any  man  or  body  of  men. 


o 


Men  who  approach  another  party  witli  seiilinients  such  as 
these  would  seem  entitlcil  to  a  ctsurt^Tais  liearin^ir  at  least.  If  tboy 
are  to  be  met  forthwith  wWli  the  ^!l^ulnng  rejiHiS'ler:  You  mis- 
represent; vou  invent  the  i^rnuud  «)f  VLiur  i-nticisni  :  vou  are  lii^(>i>! 
it  IS  evident  that  th(;  xAhw  \niny  i!M/an>  \o  make  hiulT  th*-'  metiiod, 
of  his  argumentation,  and  f^'-uiii-  \\\h)1\  liie  passiouo  of  Ins  iriunds 
to  supply   tluii    vaJnr   wiiii-h  siiouid  have  gone  infn  his   rea-^nning. 


II. 

•        Patriotic  Catholicism. 

The  Lutheran  pastors  had  submitted  to  the  President  the 
following  question : 

Are  you  not  aware  of  the  fact  that  the  Roman  Catholic  Church 
has  again  and  again,  for  centuries  back  and  down  to  modern  times, 
through  its  official  head  and  other  authorities,  denounced  as  wholly 
wrong  and  as  things  to  be  tolerated  only  so  long  as  they  cannot  be 
changed,  the  complete  separation  of  Church  and  State,  full  religious 
liberty,  freedom  of  conscience,  of  speech,  and  of  the  press,  and  that, 
moreover,  it  proclaims  its  teachings  and  principles  to  be  unchange- 
able, and  boasts  of  being  "semper  idem"? 

To  substantiate  the  claim  embodied  in  this  querv%  the  Lutheran 
letter  presented  the  evidence  from  unimpeached  Catholic  sources, 
thus  following  up  the  charge  with  the  proof.  Mr.  Cockran  repro- 
duced the  Lutheran  charge  thus: 

And  why?  Because,  forsooth,  in  the  oi)iiiion  of  these  Lutheran 
gentlemen  the  Catholic  Church,  by  her  constitution,  her  discipline, 
and  her  tradition,  is  opposed  to  the  existence  of  democratic  institu- 
tions, and,  especially  to  that  separation  between  Church  and  State 
which  is  a  fundamental  feature  of  our  Constitution  and  system. 

This  restatement  of  the  Lutheran  contention  is  quite  satis- 
factory. It  is  gratifying  to  observe  that  the  full  force  of  the  New 
York  letter  has  been  felt  by  Mr.  Cockran.  We  are  justified  now 
in  expecting  that  whatever  errors  may  slip  into  his  reasoning  on 
the  point  in  controversy  they  will  not  be  such  as  would  arise  from 
a  misconception  of  the  position  occupied  by  the  opponent.  With 
commendable  clearness  and  directness  Mr.  Cockran  approaches  the 
refutation  of  the  charge  raised  against  his  cliurch.     He  says: 


till 


AK 


"'^itatgffl  >»«nw.vt,--u<,  ijK^jg* 


16 


Now,  against  this  statement  that  the  extension  of  Catholicism  can 
be  injurious  to  the  safety  of  this  republic,  I  place  the  other  statement 
that  the  widest  extension  of  Catholic  faith.  Catholic  worship,  Catho- 
lic fervor,  that  is  to  say,  the  widest  success  of  this  society,  must 
operate  not  to  impair,  but  to  stimulate,  the  loyalty  of  an  American 
citizen  (applause) ;  that  it  cannot  operate  to  weaken,  but  must 
operate  to  strengthen,  the  foundations  of  this  government  (applause) ; 
that  tilt  Catholic  Church  is  not  only  a  force  that  must  work  for 
the  safety  of  republican  government,  but  it  is  the  strongest  force 
that  can  operate  for  its  protection  (applause),  yea,  m  re,  that  it  is 
the  only  force  which  can  operate  for  its  safety,  (Applause  and 
cheers.) 

Here  is  patriotic  fervor  at  white  lieat.  This  fine  paragraph 
slioiild  be  read  over  and  over,  especially  the  clause  which  contains 

the  climax 

ininiediatel 


whieli   we   at  uiice  juiii   one  that    followuii    almost 


aftf^r  it: 
AVhat  must  be  the  effect  of  tlif  extension  —  growth-- of  Catholic 


faith  ill  this  country?     Well,  to  beo-in  witli,  I  think 


t   is  capable  of 


absolute  demonstration  that  the  growth  of  Catholicism  must  result 
in  democratic  or  free  government.  It  can  have  no  other  result,  and 
the  fruit  which  Catholicism  produces  inevitably  is  the  fruit  which 
Catholicism  must  conserve  naturally. 

We  hear  ''free  government"  spoken  of  in  the  future  tense. 
What  does  this  mean?  We  hear  it  described  as  the  result  and 
fruit  of  an  activity  that  is  but  begun  and  that  must  be  much  in- 
creased in  order  that  the  fruit  and  result  may  appear.  What  does 
this  mean?  Is  this  ardent  patriot  vowing  allegiance  to  present 
conditions  or  to  future  developments?  If  free  government  is  con- 
ditioned upon  the  growth  of  Catholicism,  if  Catholicism  is  the 
only  force  whicli  can  operate  for  its  safety,  then  it  follows  tliat  the 
freedom  of  the  North  American  Republic  will  increase  in  the  same 
ratio  as  the  membership  of  the  Catholic  Church  increases;  then 
it  follows  that  any  limitation  or  weakening  of  Catholic  forces,  and 
any  increase  of  non-Catholic  forces  is  a  menace  to  the  safety  of 
the  Republic ;  then  it  follows  that  the  Republic  will  be  perfectly 
free  only  when  all  its  citizens  are  Catholics.  We  ask  the  reader 
once  more  to  read  and  re-read  these  statements  of  Mr.  Cockran, 
to  ponder  their  plain  meaning  and  evident  scope,  and  to  decide 
for  himself  whether  his  words  can  convey  any  other  sense  than 
the  one  which  we  have  given.  If  it  were  not  that  we  wish  to 
follow  as  much  as  possible  the  order  and  sequence  of  Mr.  Cockran's 
remarks,   we  should  cite,  even   at  this  place,   still  more   extended 


•mmt*^ 


17 


remarks  of  the  speaker  near  the  close  of  his  oration  which  show 
with  noon-day  clearness  that  when  Mr.  Cockran  pleads  for  a  free 
Eepublic  he  has  in  mind  a  Catholic  Republic,  and  that  he  is  utterly 
unable  to  conceive  of  true  political  freedom  except  as  procured  by 
the  ascendency  of  his  church. 

And  now  we  cease  to  \vonder  at  Mr.  Cockran's  patriotic  out- 
bursts and  at  the  jubilant  acclaim  of  his  audience.     Of  course, 
both  want  the  free  institutions  of  the  Republic  to  continue,  in 
order  that  Catholicism  may  grow  and  spread  and  fill  the  land. 
ilicy    vsani    free   speech  —  to   proclaim    Catholicism;     they   want 
freedom  of  the  ])ress  —  to  advertise  CaiiioiicisMi  .    lii  y  want  free- 
drMii  of  conscience  —  to  make  Catholic  conver^^      Iv^vrv  Aniorirnn 
lilM-nv   i<  arroptable  to  them,  is  an  iminoiiH'  advanta-o  in  ihom,  ^ 
becau;se  it  favoiv,   protects,  fosters,  and  acrol.-ralo-  iht'  realization 
of,  their  Catholic  a>])irations.     I  i'  ih^  ;a\\>  and   ni^ntutions  of  the 
countrv  woro  (Hirernii    ffoiii   wjial   thov  ana  if  a,iiti-Catliolie  h:^^is- 
lation  were  introdur^.i    in   lisis  country,  a>  it   has  fteen   mtrotiia/od 
Hi  some  European  coinitnes.  Catholici-ni  would  not  grow  half  as 
rapidly  as  it  does  at  ])r(^seiit.     Hu'rofore.  Catholics  love  this  free 
countrv  with  an   exceeding:  ^rrt-at   love,  ami   eniulate   and   siir{)ass 
the  patriotic  ardor  of  America's  truest  and   noblest  sons.     They 
love  the  Republic  —  for  themselves. 

And  now,  how  stands  the  argument  lietween  ^Ir.  Cockran  and 
the  Lutheran  pastors?    What  is  the  quality  of  Mr.  Cockran's  logic? 
:Mr.  Cockran  has  plainly  equivocated  the  terms  ''free''  and  ''free- 
dom" which  the   Lutheran    raistors  had   used.     His  freedom   is  a 
different  sort  of  freedom  inmi  the  one  whicii  the  Lutheran  pastors 
had  advocated.      ^Ir.   Coekran's   ^"freedom"   is   derived   from,   sup- 
ported and  safeguarded  only  f.y  ilic^  Catholic  Chureii :    the  freedom 
which,  the  Liitheran  pa>ior>  had  .•hampioned  i-  derivtMi  from,  sup- 
ported and  safeguardcMl   t)y  our  jiresent  political   institutions.     In 
Mr.  Cockran's  view  the  American  Constitution  is  a  means  to  an 
end;   in  the  view  of  the  Lutheran  pastors  it  is  the  end  itself.     It's 
an  old  trick  this,  of  denying  an  opponent's  claim  in  a  sense  dif- 
ferent from  that  in  which  the  claim  had  been  advanced.    The  world 
knows  full  well  the  school  where  this  art  is  taught.    If  Mr.  Cockran 
has  not  taken  Ids  degree  in  tliat  school  ere  this,  steps  should  be 
taken  to  give  him  his  title  now.     It  is  coming  to  him. 


18 


III. 
The  Catholic  Church  the  Mother  of  Democracies. 

Mr.  Cockran  traced  the  origin  of  democratic  government  to 
"the  Gospel  entrusted  to  the  Catholic  Church  by  its  Divine  Author 
and  her  Divine  Founder.^^     He  said: 

In  the  last  analysis  the  difference  between  democracy  und  all 
bther  forms  of  government  is  that  democracy  believes  in  human 
virtue.  All  other  forms  of  government  are  built  on  distrust  of 
human  vices.  Democracy  believes  that  human  virtue  is  a  rock  on 
which  government  can  be  built  with  perfect  security  and  the  most 
beneficent  results.  All  other  forms  of  government  believe  that 
human  depravity  is  so  general  that  government  must  be  organized 
to  prevent,   check,  and   repress  its  evil  and  sinister  manifestations. 

Now,  where  in  all  the  experience  of  mankind  do  we  find  the  first 
suggestion  that  man  is  capable  of  maintaining  government  for  the 
protection  of  the  minority  and  of  all  citizens,  where  the  powers  of 
government  are  entrusted  to  the  whole  body  of  the  people?  Every 
form  of  government  that  existed  before  Christianity  was  preached 
and  established  was  built  on  the  theory  that  man  could  be  restrained 
from  assailing  the  property  and  liberty  of  his  fellow  for  the  purpose 
of  plundering  only  by  fear,  fear  of  death,  fear  of  imprisonment,  fear 
of  punishment,  fear  of  torture.  The  principle  that  man  cr>u](]  he 
trusted  with  the  powers  of  governmont.  anr]  that  ilny  vvouM  'h<-  <  x*  r- 
cised  nut  fur  tho  oppression  of  any,  but  for  thu  protection  .-f  all  is 
not  fmmrl  in  any  speech  of  any  trihnnr,  in  any  system  of  philn.s.-phy 
fomiulated  bv  tho  wi?dnm  of  iii<-n.  in  aiiv  institution  of  ji'uvcnniH-nt 
established  \>y  statesmen,  in  any  dream  uf  phijosnpliors.  in  aiiv  monii- 
ment  of  human  wisdom,  but  in  the  Gospel  of  Jesus  (1iri>t  preached 
by  Tlira  and  His  followers.    (Applause  and  cheers.) 

What  is  the  basic  princi])]'-  of  Cliristianity ?  Wliy.  it  is  the 
measureless  perfectibility  of  men,  its  conception  of  our  redemption 
was  that,  while  man  is  capable  of  sinkin^^  tu  degradation  that  is 
appalling,  yet  is  he  capable  of  improvement  so  vast,  of  excellence  so 
perfect,  that  God  Himself  could  assuine  human  form  and  human 
nature  without  suffering  injury  to,  or  abasement  of,  His  divine 
nature.  (Applause.)  It  is  true  that  the  word  of  revelation  was  spoken 
by  God,  but  its  Author  lived  and  suffered  and  died  as  man.  As  God 
Ho  came  on  the  ^Xfount,  raised  the  dead,  cast  out  devils.  As  man 
He  fasted  in  the  desert.  As  man  He  sorrowed  in  the  garden.  As 
man  He  felt  the  scourge  on  His  back.  As  m.an  He  felt  the  crown 
of  thorns  on  His  head.  As  man  He  felt  the  nails  in  His  hands  and 
feet,  the  cruel  spear  in  His  side,  tasted  the  bitter  Sponge  in  His  lips ; 
and  it  was  as  man  that  He  forgave  and  asked  His  Father  in  L<5aven 
to  forgive  the  apostle  that  had  betrayed  Him,  the  priests  that  had 
plotted  against  Him,  the  people  who  had  renounced  Him,  the  rabble 


19 


who  had  mocked  Him,  the  soldiers  who  spat  on  Him,  the  executioner 
that  killed  Him;  and  there  was  not  a  merit  which  He  displayed  all 
the  way  up  to  Calvary,  or  on  the  cross  as  He  hung  from  it,  that 
you  and  I  and  the  humblest  human  being  cannot  hope  to  imitate  in 
his  daily  life.  (Applause.)  His  divine  perfection,  of  course,  no 
human  being  can  hope  to  equal,  but  every  one  can  strive  to  imitate 
Him,  and  in  the  process  of  Striving  each  one  must  immediately  ex- 
perience a  moral  improvement  that  is  practically  immeasurable. 

An  idol,  smashed  long  ago  by  the  persons  who  had  first  sought 
to  raise  it,  here  looms  up  again :  a  Christ  who  is  a  social  reformer 
and  a  political  liberator,  whose  mission  it  is  by  His  teaching  and 
by  the  force  of  His  example  to  lead  men  to  regard  their  existing 
governments  as  an  abasement  and  an  insult  to  the  nobility  of 
human  nature,  *and  to  set  up  democratic  governments.  We  know 
what  hopes  the  political  malcontents  of  His  day  had  attached  to 
this  Christ,  how  sorely  disappointed  they  were  that  He  had  not 
'^raised  up  Israel,"  had  not  established  His  kingdom,  had  refused 
their  crown,  had  declined  to  settle  a  dispute  concerning  property, 
had  paid  the  tribute  money  to  the  state,  had  laid  down  the  rule : 
"Eender  uniu  Caesar"  —  the  heathen  emperor  of  His  day  ^  "the 
tliiiius  which  nre  Caesar's,"  had  acknowledged  that  Caesar's  repre- 
seniaiivH  before  whom  TT*  had  come  to  be  arraigned  wa^  vested 
uith  iMov.r  ibai  was  given  him  from  on  high.  The  r-r  -t  ^  .m 
Mr.  (  uekran  pictures  was  slain  for  the  very  reason   ;isii    ih    uas 


not  a.nu 


vonld  not  he  w^hnt  ATr.  Cockran  allege.- 


I  i  u  i  I,    i 


Hi-  wa 


And 


\\\>  aiiostles?      Paul   i  njoins  upon  the  congregat 


tliUi 


Roine.   in 


one  el  1 1  ii'i' 


lapter,  respect  and  obedience 


-^  1 1  i 


!h 


in  iif-]ii)Mc  srove 


mcBt  of  Nero,  am!    inculcates  the  principle  of  fear,  y-  a.  declares 


that  th*'  !)0wers  tiuii  be  are  set  up  to  intimidat.'  -h-n.  The  i*iea 
of  a,  praeiiriiLiv  immeasurable  capacity  v>v  inuraf  iini.roveira-nt 
latent  m  the  human  uatiirf  aaal  t.o  be  elicited  bv  tia/  tb>>|K4  l-as 
not  entered,  his  nuiid.  lie  iu;\h->  it  the  dniy  .-t  tlie  (■!ir]>tian 
pastors  Tiniothy  a!id  Titus  to  tfaeh  oiKMheiire.  re\<'rfiiee  to  their 
pagan  governments.  And  hi^t.  not  h-ast.  l\'ter  wlioni  Mr.  Coekran, 
we  take  it,  would  respeet  before  the  other  apostles,  teaches  citizens 
of  Pontus,  Galatia,  Cappadocia,  Asia,  Bithvnia  to  'iionor  tlie 
king,"  to  "submit  to  every  ordinance  of  man  for  the  Lord's  sake, 
whether  it  be  to  the  king,  as  supreme,  or  unto  governors."  Thus, 
the  Gospel  of  Christ  throughout  endorses  and  confirms  tlie  govern- 
ments of  nations  as  they  stand  and  are  exercising  their  authority, 
confirms  them  to  the  people  who  liave  come  under  the  liberating 


20 


21 


influences  of  the  Gospel.  The  domain  of  Gospel  activity  is  not 
the  political  arena;  it  has  nothing  to  do  with  matters  of  state- 
craft, with  the  form  of  governments.  Hence,  to  "trace  the  origin 
of  democratic  governments^  to  the  Gospel  is  an  unwarranted  as- 
sumption. Millions  of  men  who  have  the  whole  Gospel  have  lived, 
and  are  still  living,  under  governments  that  are  not  democratic, 
and  they  never  think  of  changing  their  government.  Millions  of 
men  have  had  their  well-organized  governments  and  have  conducted 
themselves  as  good  citizens,  who  had  never  heard  of  Christ  and 
the  Gospel.  The  entire  argument  of  Mr.  Cockran  is  fallacious 
because  it  deduces  a  conclusion  from  an  unproved  hypothesis; 
it  makes  a  chimerical  fancy,  a  Utopian  dream  of  Mr.  Cockran  the 
foundation  on  which  he  rests  his  heroic  utterances. 

And  it  is  historically  untrue  so  far  as  it  concerns  the  origin 
of  the  North  American  Republic.  To  declare  the  democratic  gov- 
ernment of  the  United  States  of  America  a  product  of  the  Gospel 
of  Jesus  Christ  would  betray  an  ignorance  for  which  the  person 
making  the  assertion  would  deserve  to  be  pilloried.  Mr.  Cockran 
knows  that  among  the  framers  of  the  Constitution  of  our  Republic 
were  men  whose  attitude  to  Jesus  Christ  and  the  Gospel  was  other 
than  that  of  a  believer.  Mr.  Cockran  knows  that  the  administia- 
tion  of  our  government  has  always  been  in  the  hands  not  only  of 
members  of  a  Christian  church,  but  also  in  the  hands  of  non- 
Christians,  and  the  iioii-Chnsuan  character  oi  xhf:  iFi^-iimht'iits  ha^ 
not  impaired  their  capacitv  for  holding  oflBce.  Mr.  (  ^m  kran  knows 
that  the  nation  has  roi*  luiy  elected,  without  fear  of  jeoparlizini^ 
the  fortunes  of  the  Im  ou  oc,  a  gentleman  president  wlu?  jioeorlinix 
to  common  report,  does  nut  share  the  views  of  .Mr.  CocKraii  .)[] 
the  subject  of  Jesus  Christ  and  His  Gospel.  Mr,,  Cockran  lia^ 
been  reminded  quite  recenth"  that  this  nation  holds  that  t!ie  r<'li~ 
gi'ai-  views  of  its  riuzta,is  neither  qualify  them  for,  nor  ili>-- 
quaiiiiy   theui    fro,n,i,   holiii,!ig   office.      Yet   ^Ir.    Cockran    has    been 


ab] 


m 


e  to  credit  th.e  Gospel  with  the  origin  of  democratic  government 


tie  worid. 


More  than  this,  ^Iv.  Cockran  does  not  make  the  Gospel  as  such 
the  source  and  fountain-head  of  democratic  government,  but  "the 
Gospel  entrusted  to  the  Catholic  Church."  And  so  as  to  leavo 
no  doubt  that  he  regards  his  own  church  as  the  sole  possessor  of 
this  Gospel,  he  proceeds  to  say : 


But  in  addition  to  His  illustration  in  His  own  person  of  the 
perfection  which  humanity  can  reach,  the  Author  of  our  Creed  es- 
tablished a  church  whose  main  purpose  was  to  perpetuate,  not  by 
representation,  but  by  repetition,  continuous  of  the  sacrifice  that  He 
had  made,  and  the  essence,  the  end,  the  object,  the  capital  point  of 
that  Church  and  of  its  sacraments  is  to  bring  every  man  ,and  woman 
to  the  communion  rail,  there  to  become  a  living  temple  of  the  living 
God.    (Applause.)  . 

Continuing,  the  speaker  depicted  the  influence  of  the  seven 
sacraments  of  his  church  on  the  lives  of  its  members.    His  remarks 
were  a  fair  panegyric  on  the  religion  of  Catholicism.     His  par- 
ticular church,  then,  stands  out  preeminently  as  the  bulwark  of 
political  liberty,  because  by  its  ministrations  it  is  said  to  make 
men  temples  of  the  living  God,  and  incapable  of  tolerating  political 
institutions  which  would  foster  despotism  and  introduce  slavery. 
Other  churches  have  not  the  Gospel  entrusted  to  them;    other 
churches  have  not  been  established  by  Christ ;   other  churches  have 
not  the  seven  sacraments.    What  follows  ?    The  energetic  and  elo- 
quent Mr.  Cockran  leaves  you  to  draw  your  own  conclusions.     All 
ye  who  are  non- Catholics,  vain  is  your  imagination  that  you  can 
be  patriotic  citizens  of  this  free  Republic !    True  citizenship  ^lartb 
at  the  communion  rail  of  some  Catholic  church. 

Whi^  Mr.  Cockran  simply  carried  away  by  his  flights  of  rhet- 
oric, and  did  he  inadvertently  overshoot  his  real  ainu  when  he 
made  his  church  the  God-ordained  tutor  of  democratic  or  uec 
governments:  It  is  for  him  to  say  that  he  did.  TTi^  argument, 
however,  from  an  attack  upon  the  Lutheran  claim  ha^^  nirned  out 

'    "  had 


.  r-  .^; 


a  fair  corroboration  of  that  claim.  The  Lutheran 
charged  that  the  Catholic  church  is  opposed  to  the  separation  of 
Church  and  State.  M-.  Cockran,  amazed  at  this  revelation  of 
bicrotrv.  declares:    The  Catholic  church,  only  the  Catholic  churrli, 


ruardian 


is  the  |,)arent  who  begets,  trie  tuior  wlio  nnrturr,^.  <iii'i  n.M 
who  {)rotects,  free  and  deniorriitic  gowrniiients.  You  nuiv  h-el 
that  this  is  no  answer,  and  you  turn  !<>  Mr.  C^X'kran  and  sa v  : 
What  von  have  said  may  be  so  or  not  s^),  but.  pray.  «io  tell  us:  Do 
yon  hold  tliat  Church  and  State  ought  to  b*^  forever  and  in  all 
things  separate?  Mr.  Cockran  will  look  you  steadfastly  in  the 
eye,  inflate  his  chest,  and  with  a  majestic  flourish  of  his  arm  he 
will  say  to  you:  *'My  Church  is  the  mother  of  democracy !''  You 
make  another  insistent  effort:  ''Mr.  Cockran.  what  you  say  is 
not  to  the  point.     Will  xfm  tell  \i<  wlielher  yoii  hold  the  separation 


9 


22     

of  Church  and  State,  as  it  exists  in  our  country  and  as  it  is  cove- 
nanted by  our  Constitution,  to  be  right  —  yes  or  no  ?'^  Mr.  Cock- 
ran  now  waves  both  hands  in  hyper-majestic  style,  as  the  spirit 
of  adoration  seizes  him,  and  with  eyes  uplift  and  rapt  heart  de- 
claims: "0  holy  Catholic  mother  church,  thou  hast  made  me  — 
a  democrat!"  Then  you  turn  away  and  wonder  which  of  you 
two  ought  to  take  the  other  for  what  he  would  not  wish  to  be 
taken. 

Mr.  Cockran's  remarks  concerning  the  divinely  founded 
Catholic  Church  were  eloquent,  fervid,  enrapturing.  It  is  a  pity, 
a  great  pity  for  Mr.  Cockran,  that  they  were  utterly  —  uncatholic. 
For  did  not  Mr.  Cockran  know  that  the  pope  who  was  reigning 
about  the  time  that  Mr.  Cockran  was  casting  his  first  ballot  a^  a 
free  American  citizen,  had  cursed  and  damned  democracies  ^vitii 
a  good  old  popish  fervor?  Let  Mr.  Cockran  read  the  Syllabus  of 
Pope  Pius  IX  of  the  year  1864,  and  particularly,  chapters  five  and 
six  on  The  Rights  of  the  Church,  and  The  Rights  of  the  State; 
then  let  him  blush  like  the  schoolboy  that  he  was  when  he  paraded 
the  Catholic  Church  as  the  mother  of  democracies;  let  hiiu  take 
his  fine  peroration  and  mercilessly  consign  it  to  the  limbo  of  the 
unutterable;  for  there,  his  infallible  master  has  said,  it  bploTiir?;. 
And  all  those  loyal  Catholics  who  made  the  welkin  ring  with 
their  enthusiastic  plaudits,  when  Mr  Cockran  held  up  for  their 
admiration  the  only  protectress  of  free  governments,  let  them 
hang  their  heads  with  shame;  for  they  have,  all  of  them,  rendered 
themselves  guilty  of  a  damned  heresy. 


IV. 

The   Friiiikhe  Roman   Catholic  Church? 


The  next  view  wliirh  \\t.  roekrair?  a-ldress  opens  up  to  ii> 
is  intended  as  a  beaut  if  ui  worH  [jietiire  of  primitive  Christianity. 
It  is  a  prose  idyl.  The  young  Church  is  placed  before  our  eyes 
in  lier  battle  royal  with  the  pagan  world  power.  Her  weapon  is 
that  all-couquering  one  of  love.  Slie  befriends  the  cause  of  tlie 
dovvi! trodden  :  she  empties  her  cotters  to  furnish  the  ransom  of 
sbive^.  Her  martvrs  die  proclairnine:  the  faiili  that  has  overcome 
the  world.     She  raises  her   voice  against  the   brutish  gladiatorial 


*, 


23     

shows  of  the  dehumanized  Roman  empire.  Her  missionaries  go 
among  the  barbaric  nations  and  raise  the  cross  in  trackless  forests 
and  wean  wild  races  from  their  uncouth,  hideous  forms  of  wor- 
ship. Elsewhere  pagan  temples  are  converted  into  Christian 
churches.  The  Church  stands  between  the  proud  Roman  patrician, 
later  the  overbearing  feudal  baron,  and  his  helpless  plebeian  vic- 
tim, and  her  sheltering  mantle  is  thrown  over  the  persecuted 
sufferer;  her  churches  are  open  asylums  to  which  the  fugitive 
hastens  from  the  sword  of  the  avenger,  and  at  her  altars  the  rage 
of  men  is  stayed  and  the  pursuer  must  relinquish  his  game. 

In  the  midst  of  this  beautiful  mirage  of  the  past  the  speaker 
turns  to  his  audience,  and  says: 

It  was  these  interferences  with  the  rapine,  plunder,  pillage,  and 
oppression  for  the  perpetration  of  which  government  was  then  organ- 
ized that  is  criticised  now  in  this  letter  of  these  Lutheran  gentlemen 
and  ©f  this  Baptist  Union. 

We  deny  the  allegation,  and  we  challenge  the  allegator.  Where 
is  the  evidence  in  the  letter  of  the  New  York  pastors  that  these 
men  have  sided  with  tyranny  and  sacrificed  charity? 

The  Church  which  Mr.  Cockran  has_  risen  to' defend  with  such 

grail  1  piitlir-  has  never  been  attacked,  least  of  all  by  the  X  w  York 
Lutherans.  .Mr  Pockran  sees  ghosts.  He  is  fighting  a  splendid 
word-duel  with  a  phantom.  He  is  charging  upon  an  nna-iuarv 
foe.  ill"  ^talwart  blow  falls  upon  the  air.  His  magnificent  eirort 
turns  out  a  Quixotic  farce. 

But  this  noble  Church  which  ^Tr.  Tockran  has  conjured  up 
to  our  vision/ is  it  — is  it  — the  Roman   Catholic  Church?     To 
this  i  iinrori   Wvcliffe  and  Tyndale  and  Luther,  and  all  the  noble 
sons  u  inch  the  Christian  Church  calls  her  own  have  traced  their 
parentage.     For  the  faith  that  covered  those  early  ages  witli  im- 
mortal   -lor^    thev    Mrove--  ^Cti:    wliom?     With   the    Cloirrh    <A 
Eome.     hi  hi>  battle,  with  lU'  Ib-'inau  hierarchv   hmiior  lia^  niod 
the    testimonv    of    the    oariv    t.-arhers    of    tlie    Ohinvii    apiinst    ins 
Roman  opponent:^  airaiii  and  <i-ai!i.     They  were  with  the  protecting 
monk  of  Wittenberi:.  thov  wcr.'  not  with  thr-  haughty  prelates  who 
sought  to  erusli  lum.     To-day  Mr.  Oorkran  sits  upon  tho  tlire^hohl 
of  the  earlv  (duirrtn  and  serves  notice  that  this  (Ivurch  ha^  l^ecmne 
the  sole  pTOoorty  uf  the  Catholics.     Thev  ..wn  rvery  samt  m  tlhwe 
ages.     And  the  property  has  yielded  a  fin^^  v^Avrnw,.     'Yho  uv^k^  of 


I( 


li 


24    

supererogation  accumulated  m  those  days  liavo  been  trafficked  by 
the  sellers  of  papal  indulgences  the  uT,rl:i  over.  Is  it  not  cruel 
of  Protectants  to  want  to  spoil  this  lu,  nitive  business,  and  to  dis- 
tur!.  ;in  honest  owner  in  the  peaceful  possession  of  his  goods? 

Across  the  same  plains  which  Mr.  Coekran  has  traversed  on 
the  eighteenth  of  November,  other  men  have  wan<lered,  open-eyed 
inquiring,  truth-tinding  men.     They  have  seen  all  those  beautiful 
things  which  Mr.  Coekran  has  seen,  and  they  have  told  them  in 
an  honest,  sincere,  sober  way.    But  they  have  also  seen  a  few  thin-s 
which  have  escaped  the  ken  of  Mr.  Coekran.     And  they  have  toW 
these  things  also,  in  an  honest,  sincere,  sober  wav.     They  have 
told  —  and  submitted  the  evidence  that  he  who  runs  may  read  — 
that  m  the  midst  of  the  Church  in  her  labors  of  faith  and  love 
there  was  rising  gradually,  almost  imperceptibly,  a  "mystery  of 
iniquity."     Greedy  men,  filled  with  the  lust  of  power,  wresting 
prerogative  upon  prerogative  unto  themselves,  making  use  of  every 
httle  pretext  to  interfere  between  parties  litigant  for  the  purpose 
of  extending  their  jurisdiction,  or  increasing  their  authority    or 
aggrandizing  their  influence,  bold,  determined,  domineering  men 
came  into  the  bishopric  of  Eome.    Episcopal  elections  came  to  be 
occasions  of  bloodshed;    bribery  and  intrigue  were  resorted  to  in 
order  to  gratify  ambition.    The  sacred  privileges  of  the  sanctuair 
were  used  to  shield  the  libertine  and  the  homicide.     Greater  and 
ever  greater  waxed  this  crafty  system  until  it  undertook  to  issue 
aws  to  Christians,  made  kings  and  emperors  bow  to  its  decrees 
levied  taxes,  mustered  armies,  entered  into  political  alliances  with 
any  one  who  would  best  serve  its  interests. 

Of  all  these  matters  Mr.  Coekran  is  sublimely  oblivious  He 
IS  m  a  trance.  His  ecstatic  eye  beholds  only  the  beautiful  pano- 
rama of  the  early  martyr-church;  his  vision  is  engrossed  with  the 
spectacle  of  the  self-sacrificing,  charity-dispensing,  succoring,  com- 
forting Church.  He  sees  not  the  street-fights  in  Rome,  the  auto- 
da-tes  in  Spam,  the  dungeons  and  the  chambers  of  horrors  which 
begin  to  dot  the  Catholic  possessions.  It  seems  cruel  to  rouse  him 
from  his  revery,  and  to  call  to  him :  Hoot,  mon,  you  are  not  seeing 
your  real  Church!  ^ 


25 


V. 


Boniface  VIII  and  the  Bull  **Unani  Sanctam. 


1  3 


Mr.  Coekran  lias  het/ii  >!'')\v  in  arnviiiir  a,i  liie  point  when'  his 
refutation  should  liave  set  m  at  onre,  but  he  arrives  there  at  last. 
The  New  York  pastors  Inul  said: 

Lest  we  be  accused  uf  either  misapprehension  or  misrepresenta- 
tion, permit  us  to  quote  some  of  the  pertinent  offieial  declarations 
of  the  authorities  of  the  Roman  Catholic  Church. 

Pope  Boniface  VIII  in  his  famous  bull  Unam  Sanctdm  declared: 
In  this  Church  and  in  its  power  are  two  swords  —  to-wit, 
a  spiritual  and  a  temporal,  and  this  we  are  taught  by  the  words 
of  the  Gospel.  .  .  .  Both,  therefore,  the  spiritual  and  the 
material  swords,  are  in  the  power  of  the  Church,  the  latter 
indeed  to  be  used  for  the  Church,  the  former  by  the  Church, 
the  one  by  the  priest,  the  other  by  the  hands  of  kings  and 
soldiers,  but  by  the  will  and  sufferance  of  the  priest.  It  is 
fitting,  moreover,  that  one  sword  should  be  under  the  other, 
and  the  temporal  authority  subject  to  the  spiritual  power.  .  .  . 
We  moreover  proclaim,  declare,  and  pronounce  that  it  is  alto- 
gether necessary  for  salvation  for  every  human  being  to  be 
subject  to  the  Roman  Pontiff. 

Mr.  Cockran's  rejoinder  is  as  follows: 

These  gentlemen  have  singled  out  one  Bull.  They  have  selected 
that  as  the  one  on  which  they  b^se  their  indictment  of  the  Church 
as  an  enemy  to  separation  between  the  civil  and  ecclesiastical  powers, 
and  that  Bull  is  the  one  known  as  "Unum  Sanctum"  of  Boni- 
face VIII,  issued  to  Philip  the  Handsome,  King  of  France.  I  wonder 
if  these  gentlemen  who  quoted  that  Bull  understood  the  circum- 
stances under  which  it  was  issued,  and  the  character  of  the  person 
to  whom  it  was  addressed.  I  think  that  of  all  the  monarchs  that 
have  discredited  the  French  kingship  Philip  the  Handsome  was 
among  the  most  tyrannical. 

Mr.  Coekran  then  proceeds  to  catalogue  the  deeds  of  violence 
of  Philip  Debonaire:  his  execution  of  the  Knights  Templar,  his 
depreciation  of  French  coins,  his  confiscation  of  church-property, 
his  claim  of  authority  for  the  appointment  of  bishops  and  pastors, 
his  capture  of  the  pope  at  Anagni.  As  his  authority  for  the  history 
of  these  events,  as  he  has  given  it,  Mr.  Coekran  cites  Guizot. 

I  am  giving  you  the  history  of  this  transaction  not  by  any 
Catholic  authority,  but  by  Guizot,  the  Protestant  Guizot,  who  says 
that  although  PhiUp  at  once  set  to  work  and  used  all  the  resources 
of  a  most  powerful  monarch  of  the  world  to  blacken  the  memory  of 
the  Pope,  to  charge  him  with  all  manner  of  crimes,  it  is  a  fact  that 


'J 


'I 


y 


26 


.V     i 


M. 


while  he  might  have  been  arrogant  from  a  Protestant  point  of  view 
in  asserting  the  prerogatives  of  his  higli  office,  that  he  was  moved 

tfstori?;  •■r-r"'"'*Lr'^  '^'''?-  '"  '^'^  ^'"^''''^'  °f  that  Protestant 
hi.tonan,     hke  an  old  lion  at  bay."    (Applause.)     I  a.sk  these  elergv- 

men   who  quote  this   Bull   to  his  disadvantage   whether  they   woukl 

rather  stand  now  with  Boniface  VIII  for  justice,  morality,  religi  „ 

]..„nder.  for  violence,   lor  wrong  of  every  descripf  i,m  ?    (Applause.) 
For  the  sake  of  the  argument  we  shall  assume  that  Pope  Bfuu- 
face  A  ITT  was  the  saint  and  Philip  the  Handsome  the  sinner     The 
question  now  arises :    Can  a  good  man  do  a  wicked  thing,  and  a 
wicked  man  that  which  is  right?    And  if  a  case  like  this  occurs 
how  are  we  to  pronounce  a  just  verdict  on  the  action  of  either? 
Would  this  be  justice,  viz.,  to  let  the  good  man's  general  character 
palliate  a  particular  offense  of  his,  to  justify  his  one  evil  act  by 
the  merits  of  his  many  worthy  deeds;   and,  on  the  other  hand,  to 
discredit  the  wicked  man's  one  meritorious  act  on  the  ground  of 
his  general  improbity?    We  are  not  certain  as  to  the  straightness 
of  Mr.  Cockrans  ethics  on  this  question.     If  Philip  had  been  the 
prince  of  darkness  incarnate,  and  had  advocated  a  right  principle 
we  hold  that  even  Beelzebub  would  be  entitled  to  receive  his  due' 
We  may  not  cast  aside  a  truth  because  it  is  uttered  by  a  liar     We 
may  punish  the  liar,  but  we  cannot  punish  liim  for  telling  the 
truth.     Principles  are  self-supporting.     It  matters  nothing  who 
enunciates  them.  " 

Now,  it  appears  to  us,  that  Mr  Cockran,  at  this  particular 
point,  IS  acting  the  role  of  the  artful  dodger  in  a  eomic  show. 
He  has  a  .vealth  of  words  to  exhibit  the  transcendent  virtues  of 
Boniface  and  the  hein..n-  .  r„„es  of  Philip.  P,.,  ,„;.  vocabulary 
on  the  Bull  Unam  Sanctam  can  be  confined  within  the  iiuiits  of 
the  firs  lesson  m  a  primer.  Fact  is.  he  lias  uotlimg  to  sav  ahouf  it 
liie  soJeiuii  unport  of  tlie  citation  in  th.-  Xew  ^"o.-k  letter  is 
smothered,  suffoeated.  aspiiyxiated  by  the  dea.llv  .as  of  his  onuorv 

al..vH  the  Protestant  point  of  view.''  Why,  ifs  not  a  question  of 
exegesis,  at  ah;  its  a  question  of  grammar,  Wliaf  <loes  the  cita- 
tion Irom  I  nam  Sanctam  spell  to  a  ten-vear-old  schoolboy' 

These  are  the  facts  m  the  ease:  Bonifaee  was  pope',  Philip 
was  king  of  France.  Boniface  says  to  Philip:  Your  ™,wer  a.  a 
sovereign  is  primordialiy  mine.  Your  "temporal  authority  is  sub- 
jeet  to  n,v  spiritual  authority."    Philip  replies:    .Vever !    The  pope 


y^> 


tries  to  enrorco  Ins  nuuKialt'.  'Tlu'ii  Plnlu*  M-nd-  In-  a^vnt  into 
Ttalv,  drives  the  pope  out  of  Ivoiiii*.  and  arrc-ts  Inni  at  Anagni. — 
All  we  have  to  say  aixnit  ilu'  niatirr  i>:    Sic  semper  tvraiinisl 

3Uit  we  must  look  a  liiilv  at  tins  Pntx'  !M.)n!lace  Vlll.  lU- 
tho  wav.  !,>  not  he  the  man  whum  Danie,  wlm  knew  inni  personally, 
calls  ''the  k)rd  and  protector  of  the  modern  rhansees/'  and  who  at, 
in  his  Inferno,  he  consigns  to  hell?  Is  he  not  ua  Lr-nfli  nan  whom 
at  Eome  they  called  "the  high-spirited  sinner''?  Yes,  this  is  he, 
Benedetti  Gaetani,  the  jurist  of  Lyons,  later  the  notary  to  the 
Curia,  who  crept  into  the  papacy  by  fraud,  and  maintained  his 
position  by  violence.  This  is  the  man  who  perjured  himself  to 
the  Colonnas,  who  confiscated  their  property,  burned  their  city 
Palaestrina  with  its  magnificent  palaces  and  fine  churches,  and 
razed  it  to  the  ground. 

Mr.  Cockran  stated  that  he  had  drawn  his  information  con- 
cerning Boniface  VIII  from  the  Protestant  Guizot.  'T  is  strange, 
't  is  passing  strange.  We  would  like  to  compare  copies  with 
Mr.  Cockran.  Our  copy  of  Guizofs  France  was  published  in  :\ew 
York  by  the  Co-operative  Publication  Society.  In  the  first  volume, 
in  chapter  X\  1  1 1  on  The  Kingship  in  France,  on  page  46rh  Oui- 

zot  says: 

The  French  kingship  and  the  papacy,  the  repres.  inativ.  -  of 
which  had  but  lately  been  great  and  dorions  prmcos.  smii  as  Th  lip 
Augustus  and  St.  Louis,  Gregory  Vii  and  innocent  ill,  wuiu,  at  the 
end  r,f  t?ip  thirteenth  century,  vested  in  tbo  person<5  of  mpn  of  far 
less  moral  worth  and  less  pohtical  wisd-ao  PVdlip  tli*-  Ihiii'l-ara^  and 
Boniface  YTTT,  Wo  have  already  had  -hinpses  of  J'hili])  tho  Hand- 
some's  greedy,  ruggedly  ohstinatt,  kaagkiy,  and  tyrdmnm!  rlri racier; 
and  Bovn-Aci:  YTTT  iiAi)  titk  >\mk  defect?,  avitk  moki:  hastiness 
A\n  LESS  ABILITY.  The  two  ti'i'-ni  pnot-  of  Ttaiv  in  t  lia'  ooiit  nrv,  Dante 
and  Potrarch,  ivho  were  both  very  fnurh,  -.pposed  to  Fhiliv  fhr  II,ir,,J- 
some,  FAINT  BoxiFACE  IX  siMH.Aa  t<a'H{v.  "TTo  wash'  -av--  Potramh 
(Epistolae  F'i/n  tll'ires,  Book  11.  Letter  3j,  '-ari  inox-Taiho  ^uvoroign, 
whom  it  was  vory  har<l  to  ])rr.ak  hy  for<'r^  an-.i  im{»o.-^:^il.lo  to  hnid  by 
humility  and  caresses  h'  and  !>aiito  <  I fif^-'im,  canto  XIX,  vv.  4a--5i) 
nudxes  Pope  Nicholas  III  say:  "Already  art  thou  lion^  <nid  proiully 
upstanding,  O  Boniface?  Hast  thon  ^o  soon  her'ii  sated  with  that 
wealth  for  which  thou  didst  not  fear  no  deceive  tliat  fair  danio  (the 
rhnrch)  whom  afterwards  thon  'iidst  so  disastrously  oovorn  h"  Two 
men  so  deeply  imhiied  with  evil  and  selfish  passions  could  not  possildy 
meet  withont  clashing-:  and  it  was  not  loii^r  kM-fon'  facts  ^(z^- 'mid iied 
to  prodnce  between  them  an  outhnrst  of  hatred  and  strife  which 
revealed  the  latent  vices  and  fatal  results  of  th<^  two  systems  of 
absolute  power  of  which  they  were  the  representatives. 


28    

Guizot  then  relates,  pp.  470-480,  the  fierce  struggle  between 
Boniface  and  Philip  which  ended  in  the  pope's  overthrow.  The 
statement  which  Mr.  Cockran  has .  cited  occurs  on  p.  480  in  the 
following  context:  ' 

He  died  on  the  11th  of  October,  1303,  without  having  recovered 

lie  a  doJ    r/;rV       "  ^°^'   *^°"  ^'^'  ™1«  '^"^^  «  li°«'  ^''d  die 
lUce  a  dog.      The  last  expression  ts  unjustified.    Boniface  VIII  was 

th/  Wt"'  ^^f''}""^'  PT^'  violent,  crafty,  but  with  sincerity  a 
^e  bottom  of  his  prejudiced  ideas,  and  stubborn  and  blind  in  his 
fits  of  temper:   his  death  was  that  of  an  old  lion  at  bay. 

The  Lutheran  letter  was  not  intended  as  a  character-study. 
The  Lutheran  pastors  had  no  occasion  to  express  their  sentiments 
^  to  the  moral  character  of  either  Boniface  VIII  or  Philip  the 
Handsome.  They  were  occupied,  solely  and  exclusively,  with  the 
political  principle  involved  in  Unam  Sanctam.  Now  that  Mr  Cock- 
ran  has  addressed  the  pointed  question  to  the  Lutheran  clergymen 
It  IS  fair  that  his  question  be  answered.  The  Lutheran  ministers 
have  only  a  negative  interest  in  the  moral  character  of  Boni- 

ff '  J  i  ^""^  ^^'"P  ^^  Handsome,  but  in  a  choice  between 
the  two  they  would  regard  Boniface  VIII  as  the  villain  of  the 
deeper  dye. 


VI. 
Edward  the  Confessor  and  Magna  Charta. 

Mr.  Cockran's  critique  of  pure  unreason  leads  us  into  unex- 
pected quarters.  We  are  next  transferred  to  Albion's  Isle  The 
subject  of  papal  bulls  which  he  had  touched  leads  him  to  say 

These  bulls,  as  I  have  said,  contain  the  entire  gospel  of  fr«. 
and  representative  government.  They  are  all  the  utteranoefon  behlw 
of  freedom  that  can  be  found  through  all  these  ag^     They  are 

mamty.     They  are  the  sources  from  which  freemen  to  this  day  take 

tms  liaptist  Union  reahze  where  we  find  the  germ,  the  nolitieal 
germs  of  our  Constitution?  Why,  Magna  Charta  O^r  ConstUutkm 
18  but  the  application  to  American  institutions  of  the  Tr  Sle« 
formulated  in  this  great  charter  of  liberty.  But  Magna  Charta 
was  wrung  by  a  Catholic  prelate,  at  the  head  of  the  Sh  barons 

Sa"rt:/t'*'"*'nr'''  ^"^  r^^^''^^  '''^-  But  what  t  tg^a 
Charta?  Magna  Charta  wasn't  an  original  statement  of  new  Tn- 
ciples.     Magna  Charta  itself  was  but  the  confinnation  of TnS 


29    

statutes  and  ancient  laws.  It  was  granted  by  the  king  in  answer 
to  the  demand  of  Englishmen  for  the  restoration  of  the  laws  of  the 
good  King  Edward.  There  was  nothing  in  Magna  Charta  except 
the  fundamental  laws  of  Edward  the  Confessor.  Who  is  King  Ed- 
ward? Why,  he  is  a  canonized  saint  of  the  Catholic  Church.  (Ap- 
plause )  There  again  was  an  interference  with  established  institu- 
tions of  government  by  the  Catholic  Church  which,  I  suppose,  will 
move  these  Lutheran  clergymen  and  Baptist  ministers  to  fresh  ex- 
cesses of  horror  and  regret.    (Laughter  and  applause.) 

This  is  very  valuable  information  on  the  origin  of  our  Con- 
stitution.   Let  us  see  how  the  parts  of  the  evidence  connect.    King 
Edward  of  England  makes  good  laws.    His  countrymen  later  em- 
body them  in  the  Great  Charter.    Some  of  these  countrymen  emi- 
grate to  America  and  found  a  republic.    They  remember  the  Great 
Charter  of  the  mother  country  and  draw  up  a  constitution  which 
is  an  adaptation  of  the  Great  Charter  of  England.    Meanwhile  a 
Eoman  pope  has  raised  King  Edward  to  sainthood  by  a  bull  issued 
for  that  purpose.     This  bull  takes  bodily  possession  of  Edward 
with  all  his  virtuous  acts  and  also  the  effects  of  these  acts  ad  in- 
finitum.   By  this  bull  of  canonization  the  Eoman  Catholic  Church 
becomes  the  author  of  Edward's  laws,  of  the  Great  Charter  of 
Englishmen,  of  the  American  Constitution.     It's  all  as  clear  as 
can  be.    A  well-known  German  author  relates  how  a  certain  gentle- 
man conclusively  proved  that  the  German  word  "Fuchs,"  meaning 
"fox,"  was  derived  from  the  Greek  word  "alopex,"  which  also 
means  "fox."    It  is  this  way :  "alopex"  becomes  "lopex,"  for  short ; 
"lopex"  is  abbreviated  "pex;"    "pex"  becomes  "pox;"    "pox"  is 
turned  into  "pux,"  and  a  German  who  happened  to  have  his  mouth 
crammed  with  food  and  unable  to  close  his  lips  to  produce  the 
letter  p  while  attempting  to  say  "pux"  made  it  "fux,"  which  is 
"Fuchs."    It  is  a  most  simple  and  natural  process.    You  can  engage 
in  some  astonishing  tracing  of  origins  by  this  method.     All  you 
have  to  do  is  to  find  your  "germ,"  and  develop  it. 

We  are  somewhat  uneasy,  however,  whether  Mr.  Cockran  wiU 
be  able  to  receive  the  episcopal  imprimatur  for  his  ingenuous 
product.  His  Church  is  justly  opposed  to  evolutionism.  And  the 
particular  product  which  Mr.  Cockran  has  evolved  has  been  placed 
under  censure  by  the  late  Pope  Leo  XIII.  In  his  encyclical 
Longinque  Oceani  of  1895  this  pope,  namely,  has  expressly  in- 
formed the  catholicity  of  America  that  if  they  were  to  consider  the 
separation  of  Church  and  State  as  it  is  in  force  in  our  country 


30     

a  wise  and  convenient  measure,  they  would  be  guilty  of  an  "erro- 
neous conclusion/'  It  will  avail  Mr.  Cockran  little,  were  he  to 
pit  the  canonized  saint  of  his  Church  against  the  infallible  pope. 
We  believe  that  the  latter  would  conje  off  victorious,  and  Mr.  Cock- 
ran^s  beautiful  deduction  would  go  upon  the  Index  of  matter  pro- 
hibited to  devout  Catholic  readers. 


VIL 
The  Keeper  of  the  King's  Conscience. 

The  versatile  Mr.  Cockran  next  regales  us  with  legal  lore.  He 
is  still  tracing  origins,  this  time  the  origin  of  the  writ  of  injunction 
and  of  English  equity.  These,  he  informs  us,  were  originally  the 
exercise  of  the  king's  prerogative  to  do  substantial  justice.  Under 
certain  circumstances  the  king  would  issue  his  writ  forbidding 
either  party  to  a  lawsuit  or  a  court  of  law  to  enforce  an  uncon- 
scionable instrument  or  to  prevent  other  palpable  injury.  Tri- 
umphantly Mr.  Cockran  asks: 

Where  did  it  have  its  origin?  I  wonder  do  these  gentlemen 
realize  that  the  writ  of  injunction,  under  such  circumstances,  under 
such  circumstances  the  writ  of  injunction  by  the  king  in  the  exercises 
of  his  prerogative  to  enforce  justice  and  make  it  triumphant  nvpv 
every  circumstance,  even  over  the  letter  of  the  law,  wh'n-  the  en- 
forcenit'iit  would  bo  palpable  injustice,  v;a>  by  whom?  Ir  is  to  llii^ 
day  by  tlic  KcM-per  of  the  K'uv/^  roiiscion*'e.  That  is  the  title  lo 
this  day  of  tiio  Lord  Chancellor.  How  did  lie  got  xhh  titlof  AAliy, 
because  originally  ihe  Chaiie('i]i.r  wa^  always  aii  ecclesiastic  and  the 
king's  confessor.  (Applause.)  [r  was  the  kiiigV  confessor  that  in 
tile  name  of  justice  and  nic-rnlity  imposed  upon  the  king  the  duty 
of  interference  for  justice  even  against  the  law.  The  Chancellor 
remained  an  ecclesiastic,  always  the  king's  confessor,  until  the  exer- 
cise of  this  jurisdiction  had  been  maintained  for  so  long  a  time  and 
with  such  excellent  results  that  it  became  a  tixture  in  the  jurispru- 
dence of  the  court  and  a  system  of  rules  had  grown  up  which  made 
its  enforcement  so  easy  and  so  regular  that  its  administration  passed 
from  the  hands  of  ecclesiastics  who  invented  it  to  the  hands  of 
lawyers,  who  have  since  enforced  and  uplifted  it.  That  was  an 
interference  of  the  Church  with  the  operation  of  the  State  which 
I  suppose  will  move  these  reverend  gentlemen  to  fresh  ebullitions 
of  apprehension  lest  the  triumph  of  that  faitli  from  which  all  these 
results  have  flowed  may  work  some  injury  to  this  republic  itself, 
the  direct  outcome  of  Christian  truth  and  of  the  Catholic  gospel. 


31 


It  is  necessary  here  to  inquire  of  Mr.  Cockran  why  this  ex- 
cellent fixture,  the  keeper  of  the  British  King^s  conscience,  is  no 
longer   an  ecclesiastic.  —  There  must  have  been  no  keeper  who 
interfered  in  behalf  of  justice  when  Henry  VIII,  in  1539,  issued 
the  Bloody  Act,  which  made  opposition  to  the  doctrine  of  tran- 
substantiation,  communion  in  one  kind,  celibacy,  the  mass,  and 
auricular  confession  punishable  by  death.     What  waB  Chancellor 
Gardiner  doing,  when  Bloody  Mary  sent  the  heads  of  the  Protestant 
party  to  the  Tower,  had  the  remains  of  Bucer  and  Fagius  burned 
and  drove  married  priests  with  their  wives  and  children  out  of 
England  by  the  thousands?  When  Cardinal  Pole,  in  1554,  returned 
to  England  with  the  pope^s  pardon  and  to  receive  the  apostate 
country  back  into  the  bosom  of  "the  alone-saving  church,"  and 
noble    innocent  Lady  Jane  Grey  was  sent  to  the  block  with  her 
husband  and  father,  when  bishops  Kidley,  Latimer,  Farrar,  Hooper, 
Cranmer  were  burned,  where  was  the  keeper  of  the  kmg^s  con- 
science?   Why  did  not  the  keeper  stay  the  madman  Bonner's  hand 
when  he  drove  clergymen  and  laymen,  men  and  women,  children 
and  aged  people  into  the  flames  in  large  numbers,  because  they  had 
professed  their  faith  in  the  Gospel?     And  what  an  awful  guilt 
rests  on  the  conscience  of  that  particular  keeper  who  failed  to  keep 
the  "Defensor  fidei,^'  so  named  by  the  pope,  Henry   \  1  H  •  from 
the  blasphemous  act  of  having  Tyndale's  Bible  burned ! 

Yes,  the  historians  know  these  keepers  of  king's  consciences, 
th^se  laiiioi-.onfessors,  who  have  wrested  from  kings  secrets  of 
state,  who  haw  in  trie  garb  of  religion  urged  upon  monan-iis  ninr- 
a.i-  and  uai-.  wlm  have  by  keeping  the  king  m  tiieir  l^adm- 
strinirs  made  nan..u<  how  to  rovai   dwi-.,^  ihat  were  nhh-rivd    hv 

»ine 


them.     So  eoinp!^ 
instances  that 


■Ir 


\^     1 


lave  they  t'-hf  Ua'  king-^  rnu^i-iviu-r  m 


the    knii: 


n.)    iH<>rt'   rijiiSOieni.'' 


taken   and   gone   away    wiiii    W. 


K  Of  per  liatl 
The   weifhl    lo-ila\'    knows   exa^:tly 

1     ■   -x  1    ..    ,   i'.,iii.j;,-  ...M'i..-;i'wi  ic  h.-<nn^  !«■>  !iiov(^  in  close 

what  it  means  wht'ii  a  (  aiii^Ha    *"..*,.'>. a.  i a,    .».,^.i!. 

I.roxiniitv  to  person>  '.f  autiir,rilv.  ddie  knowing  part  of  niankiiid 
is  not  prone  to  credit  ^lu■h  (MHiiact  ni  kiM'per  luid  king  with,  "cx- 
cellent  results^'  fortlicorning.  Tho  non-Catholic  pans  ol  nations 
who  liave  read  liKtorv  know  \\m.  to  admit  (.^athokie  -rch-iastics 
to  the  private  rooni<  and  ronlidenee  of  nders  sooner  or  hiter  results 
in  disastrous  eonse(pionrr^  tw.  non-(kuhoki<>.  Americans,  lor  in- 
stance, would  serioii^iv  ohj.H^t  if  l^Mnan  priests  were  to  heeomc  the 
advisers   of   our   ^tatesniern S.>    iniieh    as    to   what   the    reverend 


32 


33 


gentlemen  on  whom  Mr.  Cockran  has  hestowed  his  tender  affec- 
tions think  about  keepers  of  king^s  consciences. 

And  now  we  wonder,  not  so  much  at  the  historical  connection 
of  the  American  writ  of  injunction  with  the  priest  confessor  of 
some  British  monarch,  but  at  the  force  which  may  lie  in  our  writ 
of  injunction  for  the  rebuttal  of  the  evidence  presented  in  the 
New  York  letter,  that  the  Eoman  Catholic  Church  is  opposed  to 
the  separation  of  Church  and  State.  The  majority  of  the  writs 
of  injunction  issued  are  restraining  orders.  They  are  not  issued 
to  keep  a  person  from  setting  fire  to  a  building  or  slaying  his 
fellow,  but  to  keep  men  from  doing  whai  ihvy  may  have  a  right 
to  do.  They  represent  an  authority  greater  iiiaii  thai  whi'  h  the 
law  grants  to  the  individual.  Xow  it  seems  to  us  tiiat  \\-\um  we 
are  to  remember,  as  Mr.  Cockran  urgently  requests  us,  every  time 
we  see  a  writ  of  injunction  issued,  that  this  in  mi  in  ordor  from 
a  civil  court,  this  piece  of  paper,  originally  was  a  Catholic  priest, 
it  is  not  eas\-  to  the  minrl  to  see  in  this  art  an  ovifTortce  for  tho 
separation  of  Church  and  State.  It  seems  to  us  tliai  Mr.  Cockran 
unites,  rather  than  I'a.ns,  Church  and  State.  If  lie  liad  urgotl 
upon  us  to  observe  that,  whereas  i'orineriy  the  iiiteriereiiee  uf  a 
Cntholic  priest  was  ror|iiired  in  order  to  restrain  persons,  nowadays 
a  civil  eourr  can  effect  such  restraint,  we  would  be  able  to  see  the 
force  of  his  argument,  provided  onl\  tluit  Mr.  Cockran  could  sliow, 
m  addiiirai,  that  tlie  removal  of  Catholic  priests  from  tiic  restrain- 
ing business  hail  \mm  effoete^l  bv  the  yiriests  themselves  from  love 
of  liberty,  and  not  liv  oilier  nu'ii,  from  fear  of  tyranny. 


VIIT. 
Rome  and  the  Rise  of  Constitutional  Government. 

The  cradle  of  liberty  stands  in  the  Vatican  palace  at  Rome, 
or  we  should  rather  say  there  is  quite  a  number  of  cradles.  If  we 
are  to  credit  the  accuracy  of  Mr.  Cockran's  historical  research,  the 
Church  of  Eome  exists  in  this  world  for  the  main  purpose  of 
nursing  infant  liberties  into  healthy,  strong,  robust  life.  The 
popes  are  constantly  on  the  lookout  to  detect  the  first  signs  of  a 
struggle  for  freedom  anywhere  in  the  world.  Immediately  they 
lend  their  assistance.    The  popes  have  rocked  the  cradle  for  demr\5- 


I    I 


racy  when  it  was  newly  born ;  they  were  sponsors  at  the  christening 
of  Magna  Charta;  they  dandled  the  common  law  of  England  on 
their  knees;  they  crooned  nursery  songs  for  the  infant  Republic 
of  ^.ortii  America.  The  late  pope  has  told  the  United  States  of 
North  America  in  1895  that  he  heard  the  first  feeble  cries  of  this 
latest  progeny  of  liberty,  and  at  once  took  it  to  his  bosom,  fondled 
and  caressed  it.  The  popes  have  fed  these  liberty-infants,  fed 
\\\vm  bulls  and  encyclicals.  "Ladies  and  gentlemen,''  exclaims 
Mr.  Cockran.  "the  whole  body  of  the  political  gospel  of  justice  and 
equal  it  \  is  embodied  in  these  bulls  issued  by  the  Popes  from  time 
to  time  to  curb  the  oppressions  of -the  mighty  always  in  defense  of 
justice  and  of  the  weak." 

And  so.  he  proceeds  to  tell  us,  "the  whole  growth  of  republican 
governmeni  '  i^  explained,  can  be  explained  only  with  the  aid  of 
the  motherly  activities  of  the  papacy.  The  Ihunan  l^mpire  fell 
and  harlairian  hordes  overran  its  territories.  Among  these  and 
!M'\niid  the  lM-)rder=:  of  the  Roman  Empire,  itomeV  missionjmes 
began  their  activities.  They  built  monasteries,  ar  iin  I  whirii  vil- 
hi^v,--,  town-,  cities  ^rew  up,  which  with  the  aid  of  abbot-    fmained 


c 


\\^  •*!'«■; 


\-\ 


Si''"!  I 


barters  from  liarun>  and  princes.  By  these  rfiarO'rs  ihi; 
exempted  from  many  duties,  impost?,  taxe^.  Tliey  grew  w^a 
and  powerfid.  I'lifv  organized  their  town  and  eitv  o-ovcrt 
The  senate  of  sn<-h  a,  *ar\'  wa,-  a  \.'!'v  au^rust  body.  WiicnevrT  the 
]iriiici^  of  the  country  m  which  iucli  a  riiy  wa-  lOcatc*]  lovads'd  tlie 
riirhts  of  tlie  citv.  the  citv  cnnnril  woidd  appi-al  its  ca^e  to  tlie  ]~to|)f, 
and  invariahlv  tia/  piioe-  w'cno  h'"">t!["  iii»ans(a\f'>-  loi-  \\y  Oi-h-ai-t*  nt 
endanfrered  lilicrties.  Thev  would  enjnin  tie-  proiai  haron.  or  the 
rapafious  lando;ravu,  or  lie-  ii.-potic  km*/'  to  eeax-  fr<. iti  troidiimg 
the  people  atid  from  disturhin:.:  tiaar  IdxTtiep.  'Yo  ihc  rt'pr*'^en,ta- 
tives  of  the  pope,  tlie  hisfiop  or  miterod  aVihots,  the  eitizens  m  such 
a  communitv  came  to  look  up  a-  tlie  elnef  atrtaits  wliu  fostered 
tlieir  industries,  secured  })ruspority  for  tliem.  andj  nutiie  tfiemselves 
a  bulwark  against  the  people's  foes.  ''So  we  finfl,"  says  :\Ir.  Cock- 
ran, "that  from  the  very  beginnin.ir  aU  this  system  of  constitution- 
alism sprang  not  merely  from  the  faith  wliich  the  Church  preached, 
but  from  the  energy  of  lier  missionaries  and  her  priests.'"'  Also 
the  American  liberties,  in  particular,  the  princi])le  of  the  equality 
of  all  men  before  the  law,  Mr.  Cockran  declares  to  be  a  direct 
offspring  of  Reman  Catholic  teaching  and  of  the  activity  of  her 
priests;    it  flows  from  her  teaching  and  discipline. 


34 


35 


We  boast  now  that  all  men  are  equal  at  the  ballot  box.  For 
nineteen  centuries  she  has  always  held  all  men  equal  at  iht  c  ni- 
munion  rail.  The  growth  of  liberty,  political  liberty,  is  Inii  iiui 
application  to  political  institutions  of  the  truths  she  lias  aiways 
preached.  From  the  very  beginning  she  has  been  the  source  of  free- 
dom, the  bulwark  of  order,  the  champion  of  progress,  the  light  of 
humanity;  and  there  is  not  a  moment  of  progress,  not  an  insti- 
tution of  value  in  the  political  world  that  we  cannot  traci  i.a<'k  t  . 
the  gospel  which  she  preached,  and  to  the  manner  in  whu  h  iier 
ministers  upheld  that  gospel,  expounded  it,  vindicated  u,  an*]  liod 
for  it  when  occasion  arose.    (Applause.) 

In  the  midst  of  this  revery  of  admiration  the  speaker  arrests 
himself  slightly.  He  remembers  that  he  is  speaking  in  republican 
America,  and  that  his  church  has  assisted  at  the  coronation  of 
kings.  He  does  not  say  what  kings  they  sometimes  were,  nor  what 
was  the  exact  nature  of  the  assistance  whicli  Kome  rendered  on 
such  occasions.  But  he  has  not  permitted  this  reflection  f-^  em- 
barrass him.  "It  may  be  said/'  he  declares,  that  the  church  did 
this;  "but  if  she  did/'  —  as  if  it  were  not  a  certaini),  —  "jt  was 
to  remind  him  (the  king)  of  the  obligation  that  ho  owed  to  the 
subjects." 

Wonderful,  mysterious  Eome !  that  can  pose  as  the  personifi- 
cation of  human  liberty  whether  she  makes  or  uiiinakes  kin  its; 
that  can  make  the  freeholder  on  the  border?  of  ciYilization.  the 
hanseatic  city  by  the  sea,  the  republic  that  n«'>iles  among;  tiie 
mountains,  the  absolute  monarch,  and  even  the  d(^s|)ot  whose  hand 
is  a  hand  of  iron  upon  the  neck  oi'  his  people,  all  these  divergent 
and  contradictory  forces  look  up  to  lior  and  receive  assurances  from 
her  that,  if  they  will  only  look  to  her,  she  will  secure  them  iii  the 
undisturbed  possession  oi'  tl^'ir  liberties.  She  has  liberties  to  >ujt 
all  sorts  ami  conditions  oi  men.  She  can  ^ixij  her  arm  with 
chariiiiiiix  irraeo  to  Lonis  XTY  and  lo  Diaz,  to  the  hnriro-masfer  of 
a  free  city  and  to  the  despot  of  a  bariiarie  tri.i)e.  She  can  iu'  all 
things  to  all  nieii,  and  claims  tliat  she  must  be  thus  on  the  authority 
of  the  Gospel.     Wonderful,  mysterious  Eome ! 

Yet,  ^fr.  Ooekran's  representatirm  of  the  rise  of  constitutional 
governmeni  iimJcr  the  egis  of  tia'  miter  aial  crosier  is  ideal  rather 
than  real.  Has  i\Ir.  Cockran  nowhere  in  tiie  annals  oi'  the  |)ast 
fuund  meiiliun  ol'  cities  that  liave  groaned  under  tlie  oppression 
of  priests?  Has  not  even  a  faint  whisper  come  to  him  from  out 
of  those  records  of  bygone  days,  of  troubles  whicli  were  fomented 


for  free-towns  and  states  by  resident  bishops,  or  neighboring 
abbots?  Has  he  read  all  the  authors  — as  he  claims  he  has — 
who  speak  of  the  origin  of  constitutional  governments,  and  not 
one  of  iiiem  ha-  told  him  that  it  has  been  found  necessary  in 
some  countries,  for  political  reasons,  to  drive  out  Roman  Catholic 
<ir<lers?  Vino^<  he  know  of  certain  litanies  which  peupie  used  to 
chant  in  their  churches  and  which  invoked  the  protection  of  the 
God  of  heaven  against  the  pope  and  the  Turk?  There  are  some 
startling  chapters,  we  fear,  in  Guizot's  France,  and  in  Green's 
England,  and  in  Motley's  Dutch  Republic,  and  in  MenzeFs  <//- 
many  that  still  await  the  perusal  of  Mr.  Cockran.  and  that  are 
destined  to  mar  the  felicity  of  his  reminiscent  reveries. 


IX. 

Mr.  Cockran *^.  Generous  Promise. 

The  ground  has  now  been  sufficiently  prepared  in  the  hearts 

n!  tiiu  diihaent  and  distrustful  Lutheran  i^d^mi-  r.i  N-w  Y^rri^,  for 
Mr.  rockran  to  scatter  upon  it  the  seeds  of  prumise.  i  ue  hutiieraii 
pa-~tnr>  iiad  pointed  to  the  fact  that  republimn  fnTmi-^  of  irovern- 
ment  had  been  declared  evils  by  the  hierarchy  of  tii.  (  ath  he 
Church,  evils  that  could  be  tolerated  only  as  long  l^  liiev  loui  1 
not  be  changed.  The  proper  time  for  eiiaiiirm^  these  evils.  a>  the 
Lutheran  pastors  plainly  apprehend  and  Mr.  Onekran  (  nr.  i  tly 
understands  them,  will  be  when  the  tatlndic  citizens  of  liie  Inited 
States  of  America  can  muster  a  pnlitical  majmitv  h  wdi  ilwu 
be  in  their  power  to  control  the  election^  and_  lo  oecupy  tlie  state 
efhces.  A  no  io  a  eountry  wh.-r-  ^he  rnle  nf  tlie  majoritv  i^  acci'iited 
as  amattr!^  nf  cour-c  (Vdlmlics  could  nni  Im,-  -aid  t«>  In'  -iom^  some- 
tliin:--  unu-ual  li  ihev  uviv^  n,  place  lilem^^[vr>  m  .'verv  fxwition 
of  authontv  that  is  open  to  them.  hiverv  .Vmeiiean  would  in? 
fnrrfMl  to  say  that,  aerorilinir  to  the  tirin-hoiiored  en<tom  i^\  our 
country,  the  (;ath.olics  were  iloim:  what  is  riiilit.  and  w(nv  entithKl 
t(.)  what  tht'V  g(-t.  T\\r  wdl  o(  tfie  ]MMipii'  ui  uur  eiiuniry  has  nevrr 
been  anvtliinfr  *'lse  tiian  ilif-  will  nf  the  majority.  Nor  do^'S  it 
require  a  yery  hir.:e  inajornv  W)  (h'rihe  a  |)'Mita-a,!  is^l]e.  Liity-one 
per  cent,  of  the  votntLr  --tren^'ih  nf  <)\\y  ntizens  are  snfheient  to 
make  any  one  party  m  a  puiitual  conte-t  \ietorious. 


36     

Mr.  Cockran  does  not  say  that  it  is  impossible  for  Catholics 
ever  to  be  in  the  majority  in  our  country,  nor  does  he  say  that, 
in  that  eventuality,  the  Catholic  majority  would  refuse  to  appro- 
priate the  rewarrls  of  its  political  toil.  He  assures  us,  however, 
tluit  the  Catholic  majority  would  never  govern  by  force  but  only 
by  consent;  for,  lie  says,  it  is  upon  this  basis  alone  thai  a  repiihlie 
can  rest.  The  Catholic  Church,  by  the  force  of  thp  Gospel  of 
Jesm  Christ  which  lias  been  committed  to  her,  would  swa.\  the 
Cathoiii*  majority  in  sucli  a  way  that  it  could  never  become  dis- 
affected with  Thtr  present  forms  of  our  democralic  mbULLition,  ur 
6ink  iiitu  furrupLion.  Every  piirt  of  fho  Tnajority  would  ever  be 
iiTidor  tho  iraproving,  correcting,  tnuo\>\iug  iiiliuence  of  the  Catho- 
lic Church,  Ju^t  a-^  tin-  innts  which  compose  the  human  soca-tj 
are  iiidivKlually  improved  bv  th*-  tro-f.el  of  Christ,  so  the  imits 
of  the  Catiiolic  iriajoruv  would   ho  iiiiprnverl  bv  the  samo   moans. 

Democratic  govermaent  must  be  i^rvsom m]   in  the  same  manner 

by  irniiroving  the  units  which  composf  the  democracy.  There  is  no 
other  way  (a|)plaiise),  and  tjiere  is  no  inoans  and  there  is  no  other 
force  exce|)t  th(.'  chiiroii  that  is  equal  t<)  it.  When  tiiese  ^entlomen 
speak  of  the  church  being  likoly  to  mtta'fere  with  th<j  state,  they 
seem  to  forget  that  as  the  state  is  now  organized,  as  this  governmcmt 
is  constituted,  it  is  a  perfect  dennHTatic  government.  .  .  .  Tf  all  the 
power  to  modify  the  system  were  completely  in  Catholic  hands,  it 
would  not  be  exercised  in  tho  slightest  degree.  The  only  eifect  would 
be  to  conserve  the  republic  on  its  existing  lines  without  change  or 
modification.  It  would  lu-  impossible  to  make  a  more  Catholic  gov- 
enimont  than  the  one  wo  have.  (Applause.)  The  eifect  of  making 
all  Americans  Catholic  would  1h-  moroly  to  make  thi>  government 
immovable. 

If  the  method  of  Mr.  Cockran's  argumentation  thronghout 
his  address  had  been  different,  and  if,  luoreover,  he  had  not,  just 
when  he  spoke  these  words,  definitely  allied  himself  with  the'  r.^- 
marks  of  a  speaker  that  liad  preceded  him  and  wliieli  we  sliall 
exhibit,  we  should  feel  inclined  to  believe  that  Mr.  Cockran  means 
to  be  a  sincere  and  unselfish  American  patriot.  But  we  would 
have  to  hold  at  the  same  time  that  Mr.  Cockran  has  not  counted 
the  cost  of  his  undertaking.  It  will  cost  him  his  filial  adherence 
to  his  pope,  for  his  pope  has  declared  the  present  condition  of  our 
form  of  government  a  mistake.  Mr.  Cockran  and  Mr.  Cockran's 
Church  cannot,  without  mental  resen^ation,  endorse  the  encyclicals 
of  Leo  XIII  and  the  American  Constitution.  I^e  may  think  he 
can,  but  he  is,  at  best,  the  dupe  of  a  generous  fancy. 


.   37    

The  fellow-citizens  of  Mr.  Cockran  who  happen  to  be  non- 
Catholics  will  rather  regard  his  generous  promise  a-  an  opiate 
admiidstered  to  troubled  hearts  to  put  them  to  sleep.  From  the 
r-cord  of  his  chiiiili  m  the  past  and  in  other  countries  at  the 
present  timto  tiic  non-Catholic  part  of  the  American  oomiiion- 
wealth  M  ill  feel  itself  justified  in  passing  over  this  promise  of  thd 
N«  w  York  orator  with  the  silence  of  incredulity.  It  will  decide 
tliai  the  safer  course  for  all  non-Catholics  and  for  tliis  entire  Ih  - 
puhiic  IS  not  to  put  Mr.  Cockran  and  his  church  m  a,  (.e.-iUon 
where  lliox'  would  have  to  fulfill  ^1 1",  ( ■.n-k rail's  promise.  Mr.  Cock- 
raids  pFHiiisc  has  not  the  imprimatur  of  the  Holy  See,  arol  if  it 
had,  tiiai  wouldn't  improve  it  in  the  least.  Th^:  o-  rid  knows  what 
has  1h  ( ome  oi  boine  promises  of  the  Holy  See. 


X. 

The  Qithrdic   Marriai^e  Laws. 

'X y 

As  an  object  lesson  hmv  fho  political   sripremac}'  of   ratiiol- 

*  ->  1  -  ■■Si  '^  1        ■ 

icism  in  our  ooumry  would  work  lor  tiio  iniproveiiowit  ot  |M,ujhc 
morals,  iMr.  Cockran  rr't'i-rrod  i"  tiif  divorce  law-  now  in  force  m 
some  of  tho  states  of  tlie  Uni^)n.  H"  recognized  a  ditference  on 
this  point  hetwtMwi  the  T'onstituiion.  which  <!(>''<  not  iindcrtake  to 
roijulato  divorce,  and  iH'iwt^en  state  hiws  wliitdi  do.  His  church  is 
m  hearty  accord  witfi  liie  Con;:UUition,  but  not  with  the  state  laws 
on  divorce.     He  said  : 

The    church    doesn't    believe    In    divorce.      The    church    regards 
di\orce  as  a  peril  which  is  corroding  this  republic.    (Applause.) 

Continuing,  iMr.  Cockran.  to  the  merriment  of  his  audience, 
assumed  the  ludicrous  po<sihilitv  oi  a  state  making  divorce,  or  time 
marriage,  obligatory.  He  drastically  described  what  a  devout 
Catholic  would  do  in  such  an  emergency:  he  would  first  tlirow 
the  officer  who  came  to  take  him  away  from  his  wife  out  of  the 
wdndow,  then  allow  liimscdf  to  be  arrested  and  to  be  cast  before 
lions,  as  the  Christians  of  old,  and  would  die  with  the  cheerful 
conviction  that  lie  \\as  mart\red  for  tlie  divine  law  of  the  church 
and  the  Constitution  (j(  the  Fnited  States,  which  is  in  agreement 
with  the  former. 


*,*  * 


38 


39 


The  agreement  which  Mr.  Cockran  has  emphasized  is  ex- 
tremely doubtful.  While  all  righteous  citizens  are  agreed  that 
divorce  is  an  evil,  and  that  measures  should  be  taken  to  redress 
that  evil,  many  will  liesitate  to  adopt  as  the  proiMr  means  of  re- 
dress the  Catholic  marriaire  laws.  In  tlie  event  of  n  Catholic  ma- 
jority cummg-  luLu  power  m  ..in-  cmmtrv,  v/e  shoiiM  expect  to  see 
"the  Catholic  laws  and  customs"  regarding  marriage  ami  <livorce 
placed  upon  our  statutes.  For  this  very  m.atter  was  iir-ed  upon 
the  Catholicity  of  the  United  States  m  the  Encyclical  Longinque 
Oceani  in  1895.  Despite  :\Ir.  Cockran's  generous  promise  of  an 
eternally  unaltered  and  unimpaired  Constitution,  a  majority  of 
Catholic  legislators  would  pass  Catholic  laws  on  the  matter  of 
marriage  and  divorce.  Yea,  in  so  doing,  they  would,  according  to 
the  logic  of  Mr.  Cockran,  be  perfectly  within  constitutional  limits, 
and  merely  place  the  supreme  law  of  the  land  ahead  of  the  local 
laws  in  force  in  certain  states.  And  that  supreme  law,  by  its 
silence  on  the  matter,  says:  There  shall  be  no  divorce,  just  as  the 
Catholic  Church  teaches.  ^ 

Now,  we  shall  not  enter  upon  a  discussion  of  this  ingenuous 
mode  of  argument,  but  simply  inquire  whether  the  absolute  denial 
of  divorce  is  not  as  great  an  evil  as  the  liberal  statutes  now  in 
force,   which   facilitate   a   too   ready   dissolution   of   the   marriage 
bonds.     Leaving  out  of  consideration  entirely  the  religious  side  of 
the  question,  and  the  conviction  of  many  believers  in  the  Bible 
that  divorce  is  permitted,  looking  at  the  question  from  the  view- 
point of  a  member  of  organized  human  society,  we  will  have  to 
hold  that  to  inforce  the  indissolubleness  of  marriage  would  neces- 
sitate the  legalizing  of,  or  at  least  the  connivance  at,  practices 
which  we  prefer  not  to  name.     And  as  to  trusting  the  Catholic 
Church  and  her  head  with  the  management  of  these  affairs,  history 
raises  to  us  her  warning  finger.     Some  of  the  crudest  decisions  of 
the  Curia  have  affected  husbands  and  wives,  betrothals,  and  the 
married  state  in  general. 


XL 

The  Cathoiie  Church  uiid  the  Convict. 

From  the  sublime  to  the  vulgar  there  is  but  one  step.     We 

w()!i(l*'r  whether  this  impression  seized  ^Ir.  t'.M-kra!i  wiu'ii  frum 
a  eulogy  upon  the  nobility  of  the  Catholic  liniiir  and  u-  iaw-ahi<i nig 
tenants  lie  lap-*-'!  inl'*  an  a|H»ii»Liy  of  ^niia  dl'  ln/i'  unl'nri  unaie 
cliildren. 

Oh,  but  somebody  will  tell  uu:^  it  i>  very  well  to  say.  th(M»reti<-ally, 
that  a  good  Catholic  must  he  a  good  eitizcii,  but  the  pri><»iis  and  the 
penitentiaries  of  this  country  show  that  Catholics  are  in  grojiter 
number  there  than  their  proportion  to  the  whole  population. 

The  New  York  letter  is  not  responsible  for  this  compunction 
of  Mr.  Cockran.  It  had  not  touched  upon  this  stibject  at  all;  the 
thought  of  it  had  not  suggested  itself  to  the  authors,  and  it  it  had, 
it  would  not  have  been  uttered,  because  the  purpose  of  tlie  pastors 
was  not  to  hold  the  Catholic  church  up  for  public  detestation,  but 
to  warn  all  citizens,  Catholics  included,  against  an  un-American 
political  principle  with  which  the  Catholic  Church  has  become 
identified.  They  wanted  to  traduce  no  man,  and  Mr.  Cockran 
might  have  spared  himself  the  trouble  of  a  defense  of  the  Catholic 
convict,  who  is  to  all  citizens  of  the  Eepublic  an  object  of  pity. 

But  since  Mr.  Cockran  has  alluded  to  this  unpleasant  subject, 
it  may  tend  to  quicken  his  reflective  powers  into  still  greater 
activity  when  we  submit  that  his  investigation  of  the  causes 
which  have  resulted  in  making  the  Catholic  convict  so  conspic- 
uous bv  his  numerousness  is  unsatisfactory.  His  distinction  be- 
tween practical  and  nominal  Catholics,  and  his  evident  deter- 
mination to  regard  as  his  true  coreligionists  only  those  who  are 
active  members  of  his  Church,  not  those  who  are  Catholics  merely 
"by  tradition  and  recollection,"  is  quite  proper  from  a  religious 
and  confessional  point  of  view.  But  his  own  church  does  not  adopt 
this  method  of  computing  its  membership.  It  would  be  impossible 
to  maintain  the  standing  Catholic  claim  that  they  are  at  the  head 
of  the  list  in  a  census  of  the  churches  if  all  nominal  Catholics 
were  dropped  from  her  tables  of  membership.  It  seems  to  us  that 
when  quantity  is  to  be  exhibited  for  effect,  the  Catholic  Church 
is  very  ready  to  employ  the  first  and  the  third  species  in  common 
arithmetic,  while  it  resorts  to  a  vigorous  application  of  the  second 
and  fourth  species,  when  it  wishes  to  exhibit  quality. 


40     ' 

We  hold  crime,  lawlessness,  to   be  the  result  chiefly  of  ig- 
norance.   Where  ignorance  is  fostered,  where  illiteracy  is  no  stigma, 
there  men  will  lack  one  very  efficient  check  upon  their  passions! 
This  rule  is  borne  out  by  the  researches-  of  criminologists.     And 
it  is  because  this  rule  applies  in  a  large  measure  to  Catholic  coun- 
tries that  we  have  never  wondered  at  the  prevalence  of  lawlessness 
in  such  countries.     In  this  respect  the  American  Catholic  enjoys 
far  better  opportunities  than  his  brother  in  foreign  countries.    Yet 
even  here  the  ratio  of  Catholic  criminals  to  the  Catholic  population 
IS  not  conducive  to  Catholic  self-congratulation.     For,  even  if  we 
admit  the  propriety  of  eliminating  the  nominal   members  of  a 
church  from  the  roster  of  the  church,  Mr.  Cockran  will  not  obtain 
a  more  favorable  proportion.     For  the  elimination  which  he  has 
adopted  for  his  own  church  he  will  have  to  allow  to  every  other 
church ;   and  if  the  same  subtraction  is  made  from  the  grand  total 
both  of  Catholic  and  of  non-Catholic  convicts,  the  original  propor- 
tion will  remain  unchanged.     It  had  been  wiser  in  Mr.  Cockran 
if  he  had  said  nothing  at  all  about  this  matter. 


XII. 
Mr.  Cockran  and  the  *'Angelus''  Bishop. 

When  Mr.  Cockran  rose  to  address  his  vast  audience,  a  clerical 
gentleman  had  taken  his  seat.  The  cleric  had  discussed  the  reli- 
gious aspect  of  the  First  American  Missionary  Congress,  and 
Mr.  Cockran,  in  opening  his  address,  paid  a  glowing  tribute  to 
this  gentleman  by  saying  that  he  had  delivered  himself  ^Vith 
a  wealth  of  rhetoric,  a  fund  of  humor,  and  a  depth  of  fervor  com- 
mensurate with  the  subject,  if  human  genius  can  ever  approach 
a  subject  so  sublime.^^  Towards  the  close  of  his  address,  when 
Mr  Cockran  was  uttering  his  generous  promise  of  an  unselfish 
Catholicity  that  would  rule  this  country  without  jeopardy  to  its 
free  institutions,  he  referred  once  more  to  the  speaker  whose  re- 
marks had  impressed  him  so  forcibly.     He  said  : 

If  the  dream  the  prophecy  of  the  eloquent  bishop  who  has  just 
concluded,  should  be  realized,  if  every  man  and  woman  were  Cath! 
olic  if  every  officer  were  Catholic,  if  all  the  power  to  modify  the 
system  were  completely  in  Catholic  hands,  it  would  not  be  exercised 
m  the  slightest  degree. 


41     

Who  had  preceded  Mr.  Cockran?     The  "Angclus'"  Bishop  of 
Wheeling,  W.  Va.,  the  Reverend  P.  J.  Donahue.     This  gentleman 
had,  as  in  a  vision,  beheld  in  this  country  one  great  Catholic  re- 
public.    He  had  said:    ''Half   a  century  hence,   or   at  the   most 
a  century  hence,  I  see  a  Catholic  country.     In  the  winter  months, 
from  the  Atlantic  to  the  Pacific  and  from  the  north  to  the  south, 
I  hear  one  Angelus  bell  after  another  calling  the  millions  to  prayer. 
Over  the  land   are  dotted  the   Catholic   churches.      I   see   Christ 
ruling  and  Christ  loving  through  this  broad  nation.     I  see  the 
extinction    of    all    fads    and    various    philosophies."      With    this 
"Angelus"  bishop  ^Mr.  Cockran  identified  himsejf,  and  that,  just 
at   the  moment  when   he   delivered   his   generous   promise   of   an 
"immovable  government."     Not  thus  did  the  "Angelus"   bishop 
view  the  state  of  supremacy  of  the  Catholic  Church  in  this  country. 
He  speaks  of  matters  that  will  be  extinct,  or  extinguished,  in  the 
days  when  Catholicism  is  supreme.     And  he  has  not  been  so  kind 
as  to  define  what  in  his  judgment  constitutes  a  "fad"  or  a  "phi- 
losophy."    For  ourselves  we  have  no  use  for  fads  and  very  little 
use  for  what  commonly  passes  for  philosophy.     But  neither  as  a 
religionist  nor  as  a  citizen  would  we  go  into  the  extinguishing 
business  with  the  "Angelus"  bishop,  whom  the  generous  Mr.  Cock- 
ran has  admired.     We  are  afraid  that  we  grasp  the  meaning  of 
the  somewhat  oracular  utterance  of  the  "Angelus"  bishop.     He 
belongs  to  a  church  that  is  famous  — not  to  say  infamous  — for 
the  extinguishing  which  it  has  done  and  which  it  is  eager  to  do 
again  wherever  an  opportunity  is  given  it. 

Now,  we  imagine  in  the  day  which  the  "Angelus"  bishop 
discerned  not  so  far  distant,  if  these  two  gentlemen,  who  sprinkled 
the  audience  in  Chicago,  the  one  with  the  perfume  of  religious 
rhetoric  and  the  other  with  the  fragrance  of  his  civic  oratory,  were 
to  meet  on  the  pinnacle  of  Catholic  power  at  Washington,  a  beau- 
tiful contest  between  generosity  and  greed,  tolerance  and  intoler- 
ance would  have  to  ensue,  if  all  the  fads  and  philosophies  were 
not  yet  extinguished.  Mr.  Cockran  would  uphold  the  Constitu- 
tion, which,  we  believe,  contains  a  few  words  not  favorable  to 
extinguishing  efforts,  while  the  "Angelus"  bishop  would  insist 
that  the  extinguishing  must  go  on,  so  as  to  give  the  sound  of  his 
bells  an  uninterrupted,  unbroken  passage  through  the  land.  And 
inasmuch  as  Mr.  Cockran  himself  has  said  at  Chicago  that  as 
representative  of  the  civic  aspect  he  held  an  inferior  position  to 


42     

the  representative  of  the  religious  aspect,  we  prognosticate  that 
in  a  contest  of  this  kind,  if  it  were  to  arise,  Mr.  Cockran,  with  all 
his  generosity  and  patriotism,  would  ultimately  be  snuffed  out 
extinguished,  by  the  "Angelus"  bishop. 


XIII. 
The  Eloquent  Silence  of  Mr.  Cockran. 

In  their  honest  endeavor  to  remove  the  possible  impression 
that  they  were  misrepresenting  the  Catholic  Church,  the  Lutheran 
pastors  had  not  rested  satisfied  with  having  quoted  an  isolated 
statement  from  a  single  papal  bull,  but  they  brought  in  additional 
evidence,  and  that,  from  very  recent  official  deliverances  of  the 
popes.     They  continued: 

Pius  IX    in  his  Syllabus  of  1864,   condemns  as   an  error  the 
r^r-frl^^f  Ch?rX^  --*  "^  — ^'^  ^-  *^e  State  and 

m  his  encychcal  On  i?«ma„  Liherty,  June  20,  1888,  condemns 'what 
and  sTate?'  "^  "^  *^'  "^^'  "^  '^P"^^*^°'^  ^^'^^'^  Church 

In  the  same  encyclical  Leo  declares: 

From  what  has  been  said  it  follows  that  it  is  quite  un- 
lawful to  demand,  to  defend,  or  to  grant  unconditional  free- 
dom of  thought,  of  speech,  of  writing,  or  of  worship,  as  if 
these  were  so  many  rights  given  by  nature  to  man 

We  have  followed  Mr.  Cockran's  effort  patiently  to  the  end 
We  confess  to  a  feeling  of  weariness  in  having  been  compelled  to 
wait  so  long  for  his  counter  evidence.  Mr.  Cockran  must  have 
been  on  the  point  of  taking  his  seat,  when  the  thought  came  to 
him  that  the  Lutheran  pastors  had  also  cited  the  last  two  popes 
but  one  as  their  witnesses.  He  withdrew  from  his  audience  with 
these  words: 

These  gentlemen  quote  two  statements  from  Pone  Leo  ihf^  T\.\. 
teenth  and  Pope  Pius  the  Ninth  to  the  effect  thatThe'^^^^^^^^^^^ 
the  State  can't  be  separated.     The  Church  and  the  Sta^  indeed^ 


43 


can't  be  separated  in  the  sense  which  I  have  described,  for  the  church 
can't  act  without  yielding  enormous  benefit  to  the  state.  They  are 
inseparable.  They  are  interdependent,  but  their  relations  according 
to  the  old  notion  have  been  entirely  reversed.  The  state  no  longer 
supports  the  church  or  can  be  permitted  to  support  her.  But  the 
church  can't  act  without  supporting  the  state.  (Applause.)  It  is  to 
the  support  of  the  state  that  I  urge  all  my  fellow-citizens  here  when 
I  ask  them  to  be  liberal  and  generous  in  their  contributions  to  this 
society,  that  the  force  of  which  republicanism  has  been  fashioned 
may  be  made  effective  all  through  this  land  to  preserve  and  guard 
that  republicanism  under  which  we  have  all  prospered  so  greatly, 
where  the  church  has  grown  so  enormously,  and  where  her  prospects 
are  brighter  far  even  than  her  achievements  have  been  brilliant  and 
satisfactory.    (Applause  and  cheers.) 

With  these  words  Mr.  Cockran  retired.  His  answer,  then, 
as  regards  the  plain  declarations  of  Pius  IX  and  Leo  XIII  was, 
that  they  must  be  limited  to  the  meaning  which  Mr.  Cockran  has 
put  upon  them.  Xow,  although  that  meaning,  as  we  have  shown, 
is  by  no  means  reassuring  to  patriotic  Americans,  we  are  fully 
persuaded  that  even  that  meaning  is  a  gratuitous  interpretation. 
What  is  the  extent  of  Mr.  Cockran's  greatness  and  influence  we 
have  no  means  of  determining,  but  it  would  be  a  puerile  notion 
to  imagine  that  the  interpretation  of  a  mere  Catholic  layman 
could  ever  supersede  the  intended  scope  of  the  utterances  of  an 
infallible  pope.  If  Mr.  Cockran  thinks  so,  we  would  say  that  he 
is  generous,  but  he  is  a  generous  simpleton.  For  perfect  reassur- 
ance Americans  would  have  required  of  an  orator,  in  the  position 
in  which  Mr.  Cockran  was  placed  on  November  the  eighteenth, 
to  say:  True,  the  popes  have  said  these  things  which  are  charged 
in  the  Lutheran  letter,  but  American  Catholics  propose  not  to 
obey  the  popes  in  this  matter.  As  it  is,  Mr.  Cockran's  silence  on 
the  real  issue  raised  by  the  Lutheran  pastors  is  far  more  im- 
pressive chan  the  few  words  which  he  uttered. 

xAnd  his  silence  becomes  sublimely  eloquent  when  we  note,  in 
conclusion,  that  the  Lutheran  pastors  had  cited  a  countryman  of 
Mr.  Cockran  as  their  last,  not  least,  witness.  They  had  shown 
from  Cardinal  Gibbons's  book.  The  Faith  of  Our  Fathers,  that  the 
American  prelate  plainly  states,  on  the  strength  of  a  statement 
of  "the  great  theologian  Becanus,"  that  "religious  liberty  may  be 
tolerated  by  a  ruler  when  it  would  do  more  harm  to  the  State  or 
to  the  community  to  repress  it;"  and  that  "the  ruler  may  even 
enter  into  a  contract  in  order  to  secure  to  his  subjects  this  freedom 


44     

in  religious  matters,  and  when  once  a  contract  is  made  it  must 
be  observed  absolutely  in  every  point,  just  as  every  other  lawful 
and  honest  contract/^  Several  points  in  this  statement  might 
have  been  illuminated  by  xMr.  Cockran;  e.  g.,  the  phrase  -more 
harm/'  The  Constitution  of  the  United  States  does  not  permit 
any  harm  to  be  done  in  this  matter.  Furthermore,  the  phrase 
''laxvjul  and  }ione8t  contract^^  should  have  been  briefly  expounded. 
The  utterances  of  late  popes  have  led  Americans  to  believe  that 
the  Constitution  of  the  American  Eepublic  is  not  a  contract  of 
this  description. 

The  eloquent  tongue  of  Mr.  Cockran  has  been  hushed;  on 
these  declarations  of  the  American  cardinal  he  returns  the  answer 
of  silence.    And  that  is  enough.    Scliiveigen  ist  audi  eine  Antwort 


45 


The  New  World  has  pronounced  Mr.  Cockran's  address  ^^mas- 
terly.'^    To  a  Catholic  lawman  we  do  not  look  for  a  statement  of 
the  principles  of  his  church,  but  for  a  restatement  of  them.    Thus 
viewed  we  would  also  call  Mr.  Cockran's  address  "masterly  -     It 
has  been  very  valuable  to  us  to  note  how  a  gifted  Catholic  lavman 
takes  up  the  principles  of  his  church  and  explains  them  to  his 
fellow-laymen.     We  have  no  doubt  that  the  method  of  arguin- 
these  principles  adopted  by  Mr.  Cockran  will  be  followed  by  his 
Catholic  brothers,  and  that  for  a  popular  exhibition  of  Catholic 
reasoning  it  cannot  be  surpassed.     We  expect  to  meet  with  this 
form  of  argumentation  again.     For  that  reason  we  have  been  at 
pams,  even  at  the  risk  of  becoming  tiresome,  to  exhibit  step  for 
step  the  peculiarities  of  Mr.  Cockran's  logic  and  historv.     As  to 
Its  mtrmsic  merits,  we  think  that  the  remark  of  Sallust^n  a  cer- 
tain place  applies  to  it  fully:    Satis  eloquentiae,  sapientiae  parum, 
I.  e.,  plenty  of  eloquence,  of  wisdom  too  little.    We  fully  concur  in 
the  opinion  which  our  esteemed  contemporary,  the  editor  of  the 
Norwegian  Kirketidende,  has  expressed  on  Mr.  Cockran's  oration 
He  says:   "Forsvaret  var  svagt,  og  lod  tydelig  foele,  at  den  katolske 
kirke  endnu  engang  maatte  ligge  under  for  kraften  af  en  luthersk 
protest,''  which  is  the  striking  Norse  way  of  telling  you  •    "The 
answer  was  weak,  and  made  you  feel  plainly  that  the  Catholic 
Church   must  once   again  succumb   to  the  valor  of   a   Lutheran 
protest." 


XIV. 
Mr.  Cockran's  Rejoinder. 

Mr.  Cockran  has  deemed  it  necessary  to  reply  in  an  open 
letter  to  those  who  criticised  his  address  before  the  Catholic  ^lis- 
sionarv  Cono:ress.  His  remarks  were  addressed  especially  to  the 
author  of  this  brochure.  To  quote  his  language  as  published  in 
The  Inter  Ocean  of  Chicago,  January  10th,  Mr.  Cockran  says: 

The  Rev.  Professor  says  (I  quote  his  exact  words) /'The  Lutheran 
ministers  have  only  a  negative  interest  in  the  moral  character  of 
Boniface  VIII  and  Philip  the  Handsome,  but  in  a  choice  between 
the  two,  they  would  regard  Boniface  VIII  as  the  villain  of  the  deeper 
dye."  His  authority  to  speak  for  all  the  Lutheran  ministers  is  per- 
haps open  to  question.  His  right  to  speak  for  himself  cannot  be 
doubted. 

This  surely  is  an  astonishing  spectacle.  Here  is  a  man  avowedly 
reverend,  and  presumably  learned,  capable  at  least  of  writing  coher- 
ently, who  has  obviously  read  something  concerning  the  reign  of  a 
King  which  through  all  the  intervening  centuries  has  remained  a  sin- 
ister monument  of  unbridled  violence  and  prostituted  power,  minis- 
tering to  human  depravity,  and  yet  has  nothing  but  expressions  of 
toleration  for  stupendous  crimes  that  have  cast  a  dark  shadow  over 
the  age  in  which  they  were  committed,  and  words  of  actual  approval 
for  gross  personal  outrages  perpetrated  upon  a  man,  over  eighty  years 
old,  who  occupied  what  was  universally  considered  at  the  time  the 
most  exalted  place  in  Christendom! 

Even  for  the  brutal  blow  which  Sciara  Colonna  struck  him  in 
the  face,  this  reverend  professor  has  not  a  word  of  condemnation,  or 
even  of  criticism.  But  he  has  abundant  expressions  of  contempt  and 
denunciation  for  the  venerable  i>ontiff,  who,  though  unarmed,  deserted, 
helpless,  captive,  threatened,  beaten,  yet  disdained  to  surrender  the 
great  office  to  which  he  had  been  chosen  —  to  abase  its  dignity  or 
compromise  its  independence  —  at  the  demand  of  a  tyrant  enforced 
by  the  fist  of  a  ruffian. 

And  stranger  still,  other  men  enjoying  equal  advantages  of  edu- 
cation and  association  appear  willing  to  approve  openly  this  attitude 
of  the  reverend  professor,  W.  H.  T.  Dau. 

If  it  be  a  sound  maxim  of  conduct  that  a  man  shall  be  judged 
by  the  company  which  he  keeps,  it  is  equally  sound  to  judge  him  by 
the  historical  characters  whom  he  honors. 

This  reverend  professor,  who  declares  that  he  prefers  Philip  the 
Handsome  to  Boniface  VIII,  must  therefore  be  held  to  proclaim  that 
in  his  judgment  wholesale  torture  and  butchery  of  human  beings, 
innocent  of  any  offense  except  the  possession  of  treasure  coveted  by 
their  murderer,  and  the  perpetration  of  robbery  on  a  gigantic  scale 
through  violence  and  fraud  by  a  ruler  whose  sworn  duty  it  was  to 


s. 


46     

protect  those  limbs  that  he  mangled,  these  lives  that  he  destroyed 
this  property  that  he  seized,  are  less  heinous  and  therefore  less'  oh- 
jectionable  than  energj-,  zeal,  '-arrogance"  (if  you  will),  in  asserting 
with  absolute  sincerity  and  maintaining  with  unconquerable  courage 
the  powers,  rights,  claims,  pretensions"  (call  them  what  you  choose), 
of  his  sacred  office  by  a  Pope  who  at  the  time  was  the  only  spiritual 
force  in  Christendom  capable  of  protesting  with  any  effect  against 
he  wrongs  perpetrated  or  contemplated  by  royal  authority.  This  cer- 
tainly IS  self-revelation  which  leaves  nothing  to  be  desired  on  the 
score  ot  candor  or  of  courage. 

The  following  answer  to  tlic  above  criticism  was  forwarded 
to  the  journal  cited: 

TT,      rr,     T  ,      ^  ^^-  ■^"''^'  ^^°-'  January  19,  1909. 

Editor  The  Inter  Ocean, 

Chicago,  111. 
Dear  Sir, 

I  was  acquainted  yesterday  with  the  answer,  as  published  by 
you  January  10th,  of  the  Honorable  Bourko  Cockran  to  my  criti- 
cism upon  his  address  at  the  First  Catholic  Missionary  Congress 
I  should  lack  the  courage  to  ask  The  Inter  Ocean  to  aid  or  abet 
me  m  a  controversial  endeavor,  which,  I  regret  to  note,  is  begin- 
ning to  show  signs  of  esthetic  inferiority  and  ethical  deficiency 
But  I  may  rely  tipon  your  sense  of  fairness,  Mr.  Editor    in  sub- 
mitting a  request  for  the  admission  to  your  columns  of'  the  few 
remarks  subjoined. 

1.  My  critic  holds  me  guilty  of  a  fault  in  judgment,  which 
argues  to  his  mind  a  moral  obliquity  in  me.  He  parades  me  as 
an  admirer  of  Philip  the  Fair  of  France,  because  I  had  stated 
tha  ma  choice  between  the  two  villains,  Philip  and  his  assailant, 
I  should  award  the  palm  to  Boniface  VIII.  This  statement  is 
proof  to  him  that  I  am  a  villain,  because  I  admire  villains  If 
Mr.  Cockran  will  just  continue  this  mode  of  reasoning,  I  shall 
ask  no  more.  Mr.  Cockran  is  the  first  reader  of  my  brochure  who 
to  my  knowledge  has  found  the  evidence  in  that  publication  that 
I  am  an  admirer  of  the  French  king.  I  leave  Mr.  Cockran  to  the 
fu  1  enjoyment  of  his  happy  discovery,  and  do  not  think  that  his 
title  to  it  will  ever  be  disputed. 

3.  Mr.  Cockran  is  horrified  at  my  laek  of  sympathy  for  the 
he  pless  and  aged  pontiff.  Again  he  draws  a  conclusion  that  is 
detrimental  to  my  character.  If  Mr.  Cockran  chooses  to  invoke 
upon  me  the  wrath  of  the  galleries,  I  withdraw.     For  it  was  not 


« 


47     . 

before  that  august  triljimal  that  1  liacl  hoped  to  see  tlie  difference 
between  Mr.  Cockran  and  myself  adjudged.  I  make  no  objection 
when  Mr.  Cockran  states  that  1  have  no  sympathy  for  Pope  Boni- 
face VIII;  for  I  have  none.  But  I  shouhi  wish  that  my  reason 
were  stated  along  w^ith  the  fact.  This  is  the  reason :  I  have  no 
sympathy  for  any  person  who  invades  the  rights  of  another,  and 
suffers  for  it.  I  hold  such  a  person  gets  w^hat  he  deserves.  More- 
over, while  I  abhor  the  brutalities  which,  as  a  rule,  accompany  a 
coup  d'etat,  I  hold  that  if  an  ecclesiastic  meddles  in  affairs  of  the 
state,  and  his  conduct  is  such  as  to  incite  the  passions  of  men, 
he  has  no  reason  for  complaint  and  cannot  appeal  to  sympathy 
when  he  becomes  the  victim  of  men's  passions.  In  my  judgment 
of  Pope  Boniface  VIII  I  am  happy  to  find  myself  in  good  company. 
Dante  and  Petrarch  among  the  poets,  Guizot,  Green,  Kurtz  among 
the  historians,  and  quite  recently  The  Independent  of  Xew  York, 
have  said  more  tersely  and  more  strikingly  things  that  I  merely 
touched  in  passing.  It  w^ould  be  interesting  to  know  who  are 
Mr.  Cockran's  company  in  his  judgment  of  Pope  Boniface. 

3.  Mr.  Cockran  questions  my  right  to  speak  for  all  the  Lu- 
theran ministers.  If  Mr.  Cockran  means  to  say  that  I  was  not 
officially  appointed  to  formulate  the  opinion  of  Lutherans  on 
Pope  Boniface  VIII,  he  is  right.  That  opinion  has  long  been 
handed  down,  and  all  the  world,  with  the  exception  of  Mr.  Cockran, 
knows  it.  If  Mr.  Cockran  questions  my  coincidence  with  the  mind 
of  Lutherans  on  the  matter  in  dispute,  I  ask  him  to  submit  his 
evidence.  In  writing  my  remarks  upon  Mr.  Cockran's  address, 
I  w^as  authorized  to  speak  for  the  Lutherans  in  about  the  same 
way  that  Mr.  Cockran  may  feel  himself  justified,  on  occasion,  to 
speak  for  Catholicism.  All  the  evidence  that  I  have  received  so 
far  proves  that  I  have  indeed  spoken  for  the  Lutherans. 

In  conclusion,  permit  me  to  say,  Mr.  Editor,  that  I  consider 
this  episode  closed.  Only  one  thing  could  induce  me  to  say  an- 
other word  in  this  matter,  viz.,  if  Mr.  Cockran  were  to  enter  upon 
a  discussion  of  the  documentary  evidence  submitted  in  the  Lutheran 
letter  to  President  Eoosevelt,  to  show  that  the  popes  are  opposed 
to  the  separation  of  Church  and  State.  This  is  the  real  issue  be- 
tween Mr.  Cockran  and  the  Lutherans,  —  I  know  that  I  am  speak- 
ing for  all  of  them,  —  and  this  issue  Mr.  Cockran  has  not  touched. 

Respectfully,  etc. 


48 


The  addressee  published  the  above  letter  in  the  Sunday  issue  of 
his  paper  on  January  24th.  In  the  meantime  also  The  New  World 
has  taken  up  the  cause  of  its  coreligionist,  and  in  the  issue  of 
January  l<;th  in  an  editorial  article  propounds  the  question  in  all 
seriousness:  ''Do  Lutherans  Condone  Murder?"  Thus  :\rr.  Cockran 
and  liis  partisans  make  solemn  s|)ort  of  facts  of  liistorv.  of  prin- 

ciplt'^  ul  right,  and  of  thf  iinivt^rsa!  laws  of  tlioii-iiL  .-^ 'ail   m  tlic 

effort  to  o-et  nu-v  [roiu  the  charirc  thar  thwr  poju"..  ai-  a  ^lamlin- 
d;i!i-er  to  the  liberties  of  tla  i  mted  States  of  America.  The 
situation  at  present  affords  strong  pumis  of  interest  to  the  psy- 
chologist and  the  student  of  crime.  It  is  somewhat  like  this :  the 
thief  has  been  caught  with  the  goods  on  his  person,  and  the  thief 
begins  to  argue  volubly  with  his  captor  this  soul-harrowing  ques- 
tion, whether  blotting  paper  is  not  a  far  more  necessary  ingredient 
of  human  happiness  than  toothpicks.  Sapienti  sat,  i.  e.,  A  word 
to  the  wise  is  sufficient. 


^ — ■>■   ^ 


''94 

'A 


'.--"/■'.•.■/J 


■~'l   I 


Dau 


The  logical  and  historical  inaccu 
acios  of  the  lion  Bourke  Cockran 


'«*<»/ 1 


:A-. 


^'•<'. 


w. 


L»&i...    -r. 


COLUMBIA  UNIVERSITY  LIBRARIES 


0021097445 


/^  -A  • 


I  w'ts'  *;  i*  'ft 


m^t*^ 


^■■♦^»**<ifc*-- 


sp^'  -^^ 


.mmg^^^-s. 


;*1 


1^  n       ft   ^ 


fi 


'5    ./■■'if if' '-^^^^^ 

,^,;.C*i-yi?,-'-*V'/'«v5i' -''■■;•  ■-  ..-.■-.■ 


:.**"  r^iiin* 


r     MhS  J 


't*mi 


■:lB^^€ 


^\•]&^%#.v;^:^■ 


*Mt 


.vi*^,.-„.i«. 


j»,^3|»*-l' 


■?*?:*■  '.-v^ 


Wf*.! 


J^glli^v;   ■.     .■;^,..,..^^ 


'iji-l 


&'*^    ^ 


;t,„K' 


■M 


^■l-i*«*-^ 


iv'^ii:^f^v 


,V;-:.-'.:^/«fiei 


'^y^T':*/?' 


r  .i 


\ 


■;'-t^'*'iv-:i'.,-5^" 


